https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=80158
--- Comment #20 from Bill Schmidt ---
Author: wschmidt
Date: Wed Mar 29 12:56:26 2017
New Revision: 246567
URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=246567=gcc=rev
Log:
2017-03-29 Bill Schmidt
PR
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=80158
--- Comment #19 from Richard Biener ---
Author: rguenth
Date: Fri Mar 24 12:34:19 2017
New Revision: 246439
URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=246439=gcc=rev
Log:
2017-03-24 Bill Schmidt
PR
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=80158
Richard Biener changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|NEW |RESOLVED
Resolution|---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=80158
--- Comment #17 from Bill Schmidt ---
The following fixes the reduced test case. Could you please test it on the
full 416.gamess build? I'll regstrap it on x86-64 and ppc64le.
Index: gcc/gimple-ssa-strength-reduction.c
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=80158
--- Comment #16 from Bill Schmidt ---
Ah, that's not it at all. This is much more subtle. This has to do with
candidates that have alternate interpretations (as either a CAND_ADD or a
CAND_MULT). We fix up the candidate that we replace, but
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=80158
--- Comment #15 from Bill Schmidt ---
This is the only spot where we don't do an in-situ replacement. Testing a
patch to fix that.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=80158
Bill Schmidt changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |NEW
Last reconfirmed|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=80158
--- Comment #13 from Bill Schmidt ---
OK, sure, that is quite possible. Seems like something that should have popped
up before, but I guess the information gathered from the old cand->stmt must
have been harmless.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=80158
--- Comment #12 from rguenther at suse dot de ---
On Thu, 23 Mar 2017, wschmidt at gcc dot gnu.org wrote:
> https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=80158
>
> --- Comment #10 from Bill Schmidt ---
> Pretty certain the problem is in this
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=80158
Jakub Jelinek changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||jakub at gcc dot gnu.org
--- Comment
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=80158
--- Comment #10 from Bill Schmidt ---
Pretty certain the problem is in this chunk:
if (bump == 0)
{
tree lhs = gimple_assign_lhs (c->cand_stmt);
gassign *copy_stmt = gimple_build_assign (lhs, basis_name);
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=80158
--- Comment #8 from rguenther at suse dot de ---
On Thu, 23 Mar 2017, wschmidt at gcc dot gnu.org wrote:
> https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=80158
>
> --- Comment #5 from Bill Schmidt ---
> OK, I will have to find an x86 box --
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=80158
--- Comment #9 from Bill Schmidt ---
Thanks, those dumps are very helpful. I found an x86 box, just need to get set
up now. The SLSR dump is truncated but it still tells me what it was working
on when it died, so should help me out.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=80158
--- Comment #7 from Richard Biener ---
Created attachment 41037
--> https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=41037=edit
slsr dump
probably not too helpful as it crashes
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=80158
--- Comment #6 from Richard Biener ---
Created attachment 41036
--> https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=41036=edit
reassoc2 dump
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=80158
--- Comment #5 from Bill Schmidt ---
OK, I will have to find an x86 box -- fortran cross is too challenging.
Meanwhile, could you please add -fdump-tree-reassoc2 and
-fdump-tree-slsr-details and post the results? Might be able to figure it out
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=80158
--- Comment #4 from rguenther at suse dot de ---
On Thu, 23 Mar 2017, wschmidt at gcc dot gnu.org wrote:
> https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=80158
>
> --- Comment #3 from Bill Schmidt ---
> Richard, what flags are you using with
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=80158
--- Comment #3 from Bill Schmidt ---
Richard, what flags are you using with the reduced test case? Hoping I can
reproduce this on ppc64le without a cross, but so far no luck.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=80158
--- Comment #2 from Richard Biener ---
SUBROUTINE DRPAUL(SMAT,TMAT,EPS,EPT,SIJ,TIJ,WRK,VEC,ARRAY,FMO,
* XMKVIR,TMJ,XMI,YMI,ZMI,ZQQ,L1,L1EF,LNA,LNA2,
* NAEF,L2,NLOC,NVIR,PROVEC,FOCKMA,MXBF,MXMO2)
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=80158
--- Comment #1 from Richard Biener ---
#1 0x019a81e7 in all_phi_incrs_profitable (c=0x2c907b0,
phi=0x76684400)
at
/space/rguenther/src/svn/gcc-7-branch/gcc/gimple-ssa-strength-reduction.c:3298
3298 ||
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=80158
Richard Biener changed:
What|Removed |Added
Priority|P3 |P1
Target Milestone|---
21 matches
Mail list logo