http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=58553
--- Comment #13 from rguenther at suse dot de rguenther at suse dot de ---
On Tue, 1 Oct 2013, law at redhat dot com wrote:
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=58553
--- Comment #12 from Jeffrey A. Law law at redhat dot com ---
Re:
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=58553
--- Comment #9 from rguenther at suse dot de rguenther at suse dot de ---
On Mon, 30 Sep 2013, law at redhat dot com wrote:
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=58553
--- Comment #8 from Jeffrey A. Law law at redhat dot com ---
Yes,
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=58553
--- Comment #10 from Richard Biener rguenth at gcc dot gnu.org ---
Author: rguenth
Date: Tue Oct 1 07:41:10 2013
New Revision: 203054
URL: http://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=203054root=gccview=rev
Log:
2013-10-01 Richard Biener rguent...@suse.de
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=58553
Richard Biener rguenth at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|ASSIGNED|RESOLVED
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=58553
--- Comment #12 from Jeffrey A. Law law at redhat dot com ---
Re: Not creating loops with multiple entries, no doubt that's bad.
It would be nice however, to expose loop nesting. ie, prior to threading it
looks like one bug fugly loop. A bit of
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=58553
Richard Biener rguenth at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |ASSIGNED
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=58553
--- Comment #7 from Richard Biener rguenth at gcc dot gnu.org ---
Testcase that also fails on x86_64:
#define MAX_LENGTH 96
#define SEQUENCE_LENGTH 31
static struct {
char buf[MAX_LENGTH + 1];
} u1, u2;
extern void abort (void);
int main ()
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=58553
Bug 58553 depends on bug 58554, which changed state.
Bug 58554 Summary: [4.9 Regression] Revision 202619 causes runtime failure in
CPU2006 benchmark 445.gobmk
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=58554
What|Removed
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=58553
--- Comment #8 from Jeffrey A. Law law at redhat dot com ---
Yes, threading is rotating the loop in interesting ways -- I was going to
look at that independently of the correctness issue.
One of the things I've noticed as I've been laying down
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=58553
--- Comment #1 from jgreenhalgh at gcc dot gnu.org ---
Created attachment 30918
-- http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=30918action=edit
Output of dom1
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=58553
--- Comment #2 from Jeffrey A. Law law at redhat dot com ---
James. Look in the .ldist dump. In particular look at that memset call.
We're writing off the end of the structure. Now to walk backwards and figure
out why :-)
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=58553
Andrew Pinski pinskia at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Depends on||58554
---
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=58553
--- Comment #4 from Jeffrey A. Law law at redhat dot com ---
Andrew. Yes it does. I've never looked at the ldist code, but the dump seems
a bit strange:
Analyzing # of iterations of loop 3
exit condition [1, + , 1](no_overflow) != 96
bounds
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=58553
Jeffrey A. Law law at redhat dot com changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||pthaugen at gcc dot
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=58553
Bug 58553 depends on bug 58554, which changed state.
Bug 58554 Summary: [4.9 Regression] Revision 202619 causes runtime failure in
CPU2006 benchmark 445.gobmk
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=58554
What|Removed
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=58553
Bug 58553 depends on bug 58554, which changed state.
Bug 58554 Summary: [4.9 Regression] Revision 202619 causes runtime failure in
CPU2006 benchmark 445.gobmk
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=58554
What|Removed
16 matches
Mail list logo
