https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=80791
Bug ID: 80791 Summary: [8 regression] test case gcc.dg/sms-1.c fail2 starting with r247885 Product: gcc Version: 8.0 Status: UNCONFIRMED Severity: normal Priority: P3 Component: tree-optimization Assignee: unassigned at gcc dot gnu.org Reporter: seurer at gcc dot gnu.org Target Milestone: --- With this revision SMS fails when compiling this test case. With revision r247884 and earlier we get: SMS SC already optimized. SMS schedule branch at cycle ii-1 crr_insn->node=0 (insn id 16), crr_insn->cycle=-1, min_cycle=-1 crr_insn->node=5 (insn id 26), crr_insn->cycle=2, min_cycle=-1 crr_insn->node=3 (insn id 22), crr_insn->cycle=2, min_cycle=-1 crr_insn->node=6 (insn id 43), crr_insn->cycle=2, min_cycle=-1 (branch) crr_insn->node=1 (insn id 18), crr_insn->cycle=0, min_cycle=-1 crr_insn->node=2 (insn id 21), crr_insn->cycle=0, min_cycle=-1 crr_insn->node=4 (insn id 25), crr_insn->cycle=1, min_cycle=-1 changing bb of uid 64 unscanned insn verify found no changes in insn with uid = 43. Edge 6->6 redirected to 7 /home/seurer/gcc/gcc-test3/gcc/testsuite/gcc.dg/sms-1.c:24 SMS succeeded 3 2 (with ii, sc) Starting with revision r247885 we get: SMS SC already optimized. SMS schedule branch at cycle ii-1 crr_insn->node=1 (insn id 11), crr_insn->cycle=-1, min_cycle=-2 crr_insn->node=2 (insn id 14), crr_insn->cycle=-1, min_cycle=-2 crr_insn->node=4 (insn id 17), crr_insn->cycle=2, min_cycle=-2 crr_insn->node=7 (insn id 36), crr_insn->cycle=2, min_cycle=-2 (branch) crr_insn->node=5 (insn id 18), crr_insn->cycle=0, min_cycle=-2 crr_insn->node=3 (insn id 16), crr_insn->cycle=0, min_cycle=-2 crr_insn->node=0 (insn id 9), crr_insn->cycle=-2, min_cycle=-2 crr_insn->node=6 (insn id 19), crr_insn->cycle=1, min_cycle=-2 Scheduling register move INSN 57; ii = 3, min cycle = -2 ...more... Scheduled w/o split in 0 SMS SC already optimized. SMS schedule branch at cycle ii-1 SMS failed... SMS sched-failed (stage-count=1, loop-count=0, trip-count=0) There is another SMS test with a similar failure but that one has been failing for a while now: https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=69992