Severity: normal
Priority: P3
Component: target
Assignee: unassigned at gcc dot gnu.org
Reporter: sje at gcc dot gnu.org
Target Milestone: ---
I am seeing several hundred aarch64 sve tests fail with an ICE since Oct 8,
2019. One such failure is gcc.target
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=90836
--- Comment #4 from Steve Ellcey ---
Author: sje
Date: Tue Oct 8 21:53:03 2019
New Revision: 276722
URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=276722&root=gcc&view=rev
Log:
2019-10-08 Dmitrij Pochepko
PR tree-optimization/90836
* l
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=90836
--- Comment #3 from Steve Ellcey ---
Author: sje
Date: Tue Oct 8 21:50:05 2019
New Revision: 276721
URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=276721&root=gcc&view=rev
Log:
2019-10-08 Dmitrij Pochepko
PR tree-optimization/90836
* g
Assignee: unassigned at gcc dot gnu.org
Reporter: sje at gcc dot gnu.org
Target Milestone: ---
The g++.dg/tree-ssa/pr61034.C test has been failing since around Sept 15, 2019.
Looking at gcc-testresults it looks like is failing on aarch64, x86, power,
and probably more.
FAIL: g
Priority: P3
Component: target
Assignee: unassigned at gcc dot gnu.org
Reporter: sje at gcc dot gnu.org
Target Milestone: ---
Target: aarch64
A number of gcc.target/aarch64/sve/clastb_* tests (1-8) are failing with
segfaults. This seems to have started
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=91889
--- Comment #10 from Steve Ellcey ---
(In reply to Marek Polacek from comment #9)
> I'll raise it with CWG; suspending until then.
Not sure if it matters but there seem to be 8 instances of this problem in
Boost (get_color, get_left, get_next, g
++
Assignee: unassigned at gcc dot gnu.org
Reporter: sje at gcc dot gnu.org
Target Milestone: ---
A recent g++ change broke the boost build. It is dying with many (many)
errors like this:
./boost/intrusive/list.hpp:1448:7: required from here
./boost/intrusive/detail
: normal
Priority: P3
Component: tree-optimization
Assignee: unassigned at gcc dot gnu.org
Reporter: sje at gcc dot gnu.org
Target Milestone: ---
When compiling the SPEC 2017 526.blender_r benchmark for peak, the compilation
that tries to generate profile
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=91222
--- Comment #17 from Steve Ellcey ---
I tested Jason's patch on my Aarch64 box and it fixed the ICE. Any chance we
could check that patch in so that we could build SPEC 2017 with -flto?
I don't know if we want to allow this mismatch or not but
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=91825
--- Comment #4 from Steve Ellcey ---
The original bootstrap failure is on aarch64.
Priority: P3
Component: bootstrap
Assignee: unassigned at gcc dot gnu.org
Reporter: sje at gcc dot gnu.org
Target Milestone: ---
GCC bootstrap currently fails with this error:
/home/sellcey/tot/src/gcc/gcc/expmed.c: In function ‘rtx_def*
emit_store_flag_1(rtx
Component: middle-end
Assignee: unassigned at gcc dot gnu.org
Reporter: sje at gcc dot gnu.org
Target Milestone: ---
When compiling the following source file, GCC gives a warning. The warning
notes that the declaration is on line 2 but it does not say what line the
actual write is on
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=89179
--- Comment #17 from Steve Ellcey ---
The bug I was seeing on aarch64 turns out to be PR 91404. It has now been
fixed. I don't know if that patch will also fix the original bug seen on
Darwin or not.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=89179
--- Comment #16 from Steve Ellcey ---
I built ggc-page.c with GCC_DEBUG_LEVEL 5 and I see:
Allocating object, requested size=360, actual=360 at 0x8726c210 on
0x10549200
Freeing object, actual size=360, at 0x8726c210 on 0x10549200
But th
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=89179
Steve Ellcey changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||sje at gcc dot gnu.org
--- Comment #14
: driver
Assignee: unassigned at gcc dot gnu.org
Reporter: sje at gcc dot gnu.org
Target Milestone: ---
If you run 'gcc -Q -v x.c' and look at the 'options enabled:' list, it is not
accurate. For example, on aarch64 it will show '-fprefetch-loop-a
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=91242
--- Comment #7 from Steve Ellcey ---
(In reply to Martin Liška from comment #5)
> (In reply to Jaydeep Chauhan from comment #4)
> > Hello,
> >
> > With latest trunk issue is not reproducible for all three
> > case(clastb_1.c,clastb_4.c,clastb_6.
Priority: P3
Component: fortran
Assignee: unassigned at gcc dot gnu.org
Reporter: sje at gcc dot gnu.org
Target Milestone: ---
When testing GCC with the latest GLIBC, specifically one which creates a
math-vector-fortran.h header file, the gfortran.dg/continuation_6.f
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=83518
--- Comment #21 from Steve Ellcey ---
(In reply to Richard Biener from comment #20)
> (In reply to Steve Ellcey from comment #19)
> It should have been fixed by r273732 (checked with a cc1 cross to aarch64,
> albeit on a not clean tree...)
OK, I
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=83518
Steve Ellcey changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||sje at gcc dot gnu.org
--- Comment #19
Priority: P3
Component: middle-end
Assignee: unassigned at gcc dot gnu.org
Reporter: sje at gcc dot gnu.org
Target Milestone: ---
I get ICE on these GCC tests:
FAIL: gcc.target/aarch64/sve/clastb_1.c -march=armv8.2-a+sve (internal compiler
error)
FAIL: gcc.target
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=91176
Steve Ellcey changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||sje at gcc dot gnu.org
--- Comment #8
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=90873
Steve Ellcey changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||sje at gcc dot gnu.org
--- Comment #5
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=87763
--- Comment #51 from Steve Ellcey ---
Author: sje
Date: Thu Apr 11 18:03:49 2019
New Revision: 270289
URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=270289&root=gcc&view=rev
Log:
2018-04-11 Steve Ellcey
PR rtl-optimization/87763
* gcc.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=87763
--- Comment #50 from Steve Ellcey ---
Author: sje
Date: Thu Apr 11 18:02:41 2019
New Revision: 270288
URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=270288&root=gcc&view=rev
Log:
2018-04-11 Steve Ellcey
PR rtl-optimization/87763
* conf
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=87763
--- Comment #48 from Steve Ellcey ---
(In reply to Richard Biener from comment #47)
> What's the state of regressions left? Can we xfail the rest and defer the
> bug?
I submitted a patch to fix gcc.target/aarch64/lsl_asr_sbfiz.c
That email is h
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=87763
--- Comment #46 from Steve Ellcey ---
Author: sje
Date: Wed Apr 10 20:29:57 2019
New Revision: 270267
URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=270267&root=gcc&view=rev
Log:
2018-04-10 Steve Ellcey
PR rtl-optimization/87763
* gcc.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=87763
--- Comment #45 from Steve Ellcey ---
Author: sje
Date: Wed Apr 10 20:28:19 2019
New Revision: 270266
URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=270266&root=gcc&view=rev
Log:
2018-04-10 Steve Ellcey
PR rtl-optimization/87763
* conf
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=87763
--- Comment #34 from Steve Ellcey ---
I submitted a patch that would fix gcc.target/aarch64/combine_bfi_1.c back
in February but have not gotten any feedback on the final version of the
patch despite a couple of pings. I have resubmitted the pat
Severity: normal
Priority: P3
Component: fortran
Assignee: unassigned at gcc dot gnu.org
Reporter: sje at gcc dot gnu.org
Target Milestone: ---
I am seeing some Fortran regressions in my testing, but only when I build and
test with the latest Glibc. The
Priority: P3
Component: target
Assignee: unassigned at gcc dot gnu.org
Reporter: sje at gcc dot gnu.org
Target Milestone: ---
FAIL: gcc.target/aarch64/spellcheck_4.c (test for errors, line )
FAIL: gcc.target/aarch64/spellcheck_4.c (test for excess errors
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=89628
Steve Ellcey changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |NEW
Last reconfirmed|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=78314
--- Comment #24 from Steve Ellcey ---
See email strings at:
https://gcc.gnu.org/ml/fortran/2019-01/msg00276.html
https://gcc.gnu.org/ml/fortran/2019-02/msg00057.html
For more discussion.
||sje at gcc dot gnu.org
Known to work||9.0
Resolution|--- |FIXED
--- Comment #14 from Steve Ellcey ---
It looks like the fix for this is checked in. I verified that on Aarch64,
when compiling bits.cpp from 531
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=78314
Steve Ellcey changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||sje at gcc dot gnu.org
--- Comment #22
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=84201
--- Comment #7 from Steve Ellcey ---
(In reply to Richard Biener from comment #6)
> If Martins bisection to power.fppized.o is correct you can bisect the loop
> via the vect_loop or vect_slp debug counters (or first try with just
> -fno-tree-{loo
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=84201
Steve Ellcey changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||sje at gcc dot gnu.org
--- Comment #5
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=87451
--- Comment #11 from Steve Ellcey ---
(In reply to Richard Biener from comment #10)
> (In reply to Steve Ellcey from comment #9)
> Looks like that's because of different expected comment characters,
> # vs. // in your file. The pattern for the
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=87451
Steve Ellcey changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||sje at gcc dot gnu.org
--- Comment #9
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=85711
--- Comment #3 from Steve Ellcey ---
Author: sje
Date: Wed Jan 23 22:43:42 2019
New Revision: 268219
URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=268219&root=gcc&view=rev
Log:
2019-01-23 Bin Cheng
Steve Ellcey
PR target/85711
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=87763
--- Comment #21 from Steve Ellcey ---
If I look at this specific example:
int f2 (int x, int y)
{
return (x & ~0x0ff000) | ((y & 0x0ff) << 12);
}
Before the combine change, I see in x.c.260r.combine:
Trying 8, 9 -> 15:
8: r98:SI=x1:SI<<
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=88912
--- Comment #3 from Steve Ellcey ---
It is quite possible I am using the option incorrectly (though that should not
result in a segfault of course). Should some other flag be adding this to the
command line for me?
Priority: P3
Component: fortran
Assignee: unassigned at gcc dot gnu.org
Reporter: sje at gcc dot gnu.org
Target Milestone: ---
I am using the new -pre-include= option with Fortran and when the file I
am trying to preinclude does not exist the compiler segfaults
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=88898
--- Comment #6 from Steve Ellcey ---
Author: sje
Date: Fri Jan 18 00:41:40 2019
New Revision: 268054
URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=268054&root=gcc&view=rev
Log:
2018-01-17 Steve Ellcey
PR fortran/88898
* gfortran.dg/go
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=88898
Steve Ellcey changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||sje at gcc dot gnu.org
--- Comment #4
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=85711
--- Comment #2 from Steve Ellcey ---
This has been failing for quite a while now and there is apparently a fix for
it. Can we get it fixed for GCC 9.0 release?
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=88682
Steve Ellcey changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||sje at gcc dot gnu.org
--- Comment #5
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=87763
--- Comment #1 from Steve Ellcey ---
I looked at one of the failing tests (gcc.target/aarch64/cvtf_1.c)
the code looks worse than before, generating an extra instruction
in each of the routines. Here is an example from one function where
there i
Priority: P3
Component: rtl-optimization
Assignee: unassigned at gcc dot gnu.org
Reporter: sje at gcc dot gnu.org
CC: segher at gcc dot gnu.org
Target Milestone: ---
The following tests fail on aarch64 after r265398 (combine: Do not combine
moves from
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=71625
--- Comment #24 from Steve Ellcey ---
Author: sje
Date: Fri Oct 5 15:26:40 2018
New Revision: 264874
URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=264874&root=gcc&view=rev
Log:
2018-10-05 Steve Ellcey
PR tree-optimization/71625
* /gc
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=87433
Steve Ellcey changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|NEW |RESOLVED
Resolution|---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=87433
--- Comment #6 from Steve Ellcey ---
Author: sje
Date: Fri Sep 28 14:44:15 2018
New Revision: 264692
URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=264692&root=gcc&view=rev
Log:
2018-09-28 Steve Ellcey
PR testsuite/87433
* gcc.target/a
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=87433
--- Comment #5 from Steve Ellcey ---
Author: sje
Date: Fri Sep 28 14:41:45 2018
New Revision: 264691
URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=264691&root=gcc&view=rev
Log:
2018-09-28 Steve Ellcey
PR testsuite/87433
* gcc.dg/zero_
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=71625
Steve Ellcey changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||sje at gcc dot gnu.org
--- Comment #21
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=87433
--- Comment #3 from Steve Ellcey ---
Based on that email string, gcc.target/aarch64/ashltidisi.c can be
fixed by looking for 3 asr instructions instead of 4. That seems
simple enough. The new code has two fewer instructions that the
old code:
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=61247
--- Comment #4 from Steve Ellcey ---
Here is a simpler C version of the problem.
On aarch64 in LP64 mode setting TYPE
to int, long int, or unsigned long int allows for vectorization
but using unsigned int does not get vectorized.
In ILP32 mode,
Severity: normal
Priority: P3
Component: middle-end
Assignee: unassigned at gcc dot gnu.org
Reporter: sje at gcc dot gnu.org
Target Milestone: ---
The tests gcc.dg/zero_bits_compound-1.c and gcc.target/aarch64/ashltidisi.c
have been failing since this
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=71727
Steve Ellcey changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||sje at gcc dot gnu.org
--- Comment #6
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=86538
--- Comment #2 from Steve Ellcey ---
While I agree that we want users to use the __sync and atomic primitives,
it still seems like it would be useful in some cases to know if the LSE
operations are available and if GCC is generating code for them
Priority: P3
Component: middle-end
Assignee: unassigned at gcc dot gnu.org
Reporter: sje at gcc dot gnu.org
Target Milestone: ---
According to Christophe Lyon, Martin Liska is aware of these failures and will
fix them but I wanted to create a bug report to
Priority: P3
Component: target
Assignee: unassigned at gcc dot gnu.org
Reporter: sje at gcc dot gnu.org
Target Milestone: ---
Right now there is no predefined macro in GCC that can tell if LSE is enable or
not. If you compile with -march=armv8.1-a+lse or -march
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=86153
Steve Ellcey changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||sje at gcc dot gnu.org
--- Comment #4
||dave.pagan at oracle dot com,
||sje at gcc dot gnu.org
--- Comment #2 from Steve Ellcey ---
Adding David Pagen since it looks like Jeff checked this patch in for him.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=79924
--- Comment #2 from Steve Ellcey ---
Author: sje
Date: Tue Jun 5 22:21:36 2018
New Revision: 261218
URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=261218&root=gcc&view=rev
Log:
2018-06-05 Steve Ellcey
PR target/79924
* gcc.target/aarc
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=79924
--- Comment #1 from Steve Ellcey ---
Author: sje
Date: Tue Jun 5 22:20:13 2018
New Revision: 261217
URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=261217&root=gcc&view=rev
Log:
2018-06-05 Steve Ellcey
PR target/79924
* config/aarch64/
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=68256
Steve Ellcey changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||sje at gcc dot gnu.org
--- Comment #11
||2018-04-24
CC||sje at gcc dot gnu.org
Ever confirmed|0 |1
--- Comment #1 from Steve Ellcey ---
I am seeing this failure also.
Component: tree-optimization
Assignee: unassigned at gcc dot gnu.org
Reporter: sje at gcc dot gnu.org
Target Milestone: ---
I am seeing a bunch of failures in the gcc.target/aarch64/sve/vcond_1.c
test on aarch64. You can see them on the test results list at:
https://gcc.gnu.org
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=85383
Steve Ellcey changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||sje at gcc dot gnu.org
--- Comment #2
-optimization
Severity: normal
Priority: P3
Component: middle-end
Assignee: unassigned at gcc dot gnu.org
Reporter: sje at gcc dot gnu.org
Target Milestone: ---
Target: aarch64
With this test case:
int foo(int a, int b, int *c, int i, int j
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=84114
--- Comment #9 from Steve Ellcey ---
> Can you let me know if my workaround helped? If useful I could backport it
> to GCC7 as well.
Yes, the patch helped. I ran spec 2017 fp rate and saw a small improvement
(0.7%). Most of the speed up was i
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=83335
Steve Ellcey changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|ASSIGNED|RESOLVED
Resolution|---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=83335
--- Comment #6 from Steve Ellcey ---
Author: sje
Date: Thu Feb 22 17:08:10 2018
New Revision: 257908
URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=257908&root=gcc&view=rev
Log:
2018-02-22 Steve Ellcey
PR target/83335
* gcc/testsuite/g
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=83335
--- Comment #5 from Steve Ellcey ---
Author: sje
Date: Thu Feb 22 17:06:31 2018
New Revision: 257907
URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=257907&root=gcc&view=rev
Log:
2018-02-22 Steve Ellcey
PR target/83335
* config/aarch64/
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=83983
Steve Ellcey changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||sje at gcc dot gnu.org
--- Comment #3
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=84114
--- Comment #6 from Steve Ellcey ---
(In reply to Wilco from comment #5)
> (In reply to Steve Ellcey from comment #4)
> > While teaching the reassociation pass about fma's seems like the right
> > answer would it be reasonable (and simpler) to do
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=84114
--- Comment #4 from Steve Ellcey ---
While teaching the reassociation pass about fma's seems like the right answer
would it be reasonable (and simpler) to do the fma pass
(pass_optimize_widening_mul) before
the reassociation pass (pass_reassoc) t
Priority: P3
Component: tree-optimization
Assignee: unassigned at gcc dot gnu.org
Reporter: sje at gcc dot gnu.org
Target Milestone: ---
Created attachment 43279
--> https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=43279&action=edit
Test case
The
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=65345
Steve Ellcey changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||sje at gcc dot gnu.org
--- Comment #29
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=83726
--- Comment #7 from Steve Ellcey ---
I tested the patch on my aarch64 box, I got three regressions:
FAIL: gcc.target/aarch64/pr78733.c scan-assembler adr
FAIL: gcc.target/aarch64/pr79041-2.c scan-assembler adr
FAIL: gfortran.fortran-torture/comp
||sje at gcc dot gnu.org
Known to work||8.0
Resolution|--- |FIXED
--- Comment #4 from Steve Ellcey ---
Yes, this is fixed for 8.0.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=83726
Steve Ellcey changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||sje at gcc dot gnu.org
--- Comment #4
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=83285
Steve Ellcey changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|NEW |RESOLVED
Resolution|---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=83285
Steve Ellcey changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||sje at gcc dot gnu.org
--- Comment #2
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=83335
--- Comment #3 from Steve Ellcey ---
Proposed patch
https://gcc.gnu.org/ml/gcc-patches/2018-01/msg00348.html
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=83500
Steve Ellcey changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|WAITING |RESOLVED
Resolution|---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=83466
--- Comment #4 from Steve Ellcey ---
Created attachment 43027
--> https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=43027&action=edit
Patch file being tested
I am testing this patch for regressions, I have verified that it does fix the
small test
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=83500
--- Comment #3 from Steve Ellcey ---
The test now passes for me.
Component: rtl-optimization
Assignee: unassigned at gcc dot gnu.org
Reporter: sje at gcc dot gnu.org
Target Milestone: ---
This test started failing on aarch64-linux-gnu with this checkin:
commit b33f4eb038b5c30bf57de6bb10f40e11481c6be6
Author: hubicka
Date: Sat Oct 7 16:33:26
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=81356
--- Comment #8 from Steve Ellcey ---
Author: sje
Date: Tue Nov 21 00:18:14 2017
New Revision: 254977
URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=254977&root=gcc&view=rev
Log:
2017-11-20 Steve Ellcey
PR target/81356
* gfortran.dg/pr4
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=81356
--- Comment #7 from Steve Ellcey ---
Author: sje
Date: Fri Nov 17 22:44:32 2017
New Revision: 254901
URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=254901&root=gcc&view=rev
Log:
2017-11-17 Steve Ellcey
PR target/81356
* config/aarch64/
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=79868
Steve Ellcey changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |RESOLVED
Resolution|---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=80925
--- Comment #27 from Steve Ellcey ---
(In reply to Richard Biener from comment #26)
> Fixed?
I see still these vect failures on aarch64:
FAIL: gcc.dg/vect/pr65947-14.c execution test
FAIL: gcc.dg/vect/pr65947-14.c -flto -ffat-lto-objects execut
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=79868
--- Comment #10 from Steve Ellcey ---
Author: sje
Date: Thu Nov 2 21:58:05 2017
New Revision: 254360
URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=254360&root=gcc&view=rev
Log:
PR target/79868
* gcc.target/aarch64/spellcheck_1.c: Update
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=79868
--- Comment #9 from Steve Ellcey ---
Author: sje
Date: Thu Nov 2 21:56:00 2017
New Revision: 254359
URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=254359&root=gcc&view=rev
Log:
PR target/79868
* config/aarch64/aarch64-c.c (aarch64_pragma_
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=82683
--- Comment #17 from Steve Ellcey ---
Yes, this fixed my SPEC problem.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=82683
--- Comment #14 from Steve Ellcey ---
(In reply to Segher Boessenkool from comment #13)
> I have a simpler patch. It is testing...
Can you attach your patch to this defect so I can test it as well.
Priority: P3
Component: target
Assignee: unassigned at gcc dot gnu.org
Reporter: sje at gcc dot gnu.org
CC: wdijkstr at arm dot com
Target Milestone: ---
Target: aarch64-*-*
This patch:
2017-10-26 Wilco Dijkstra
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=82683
--- Comment #12 from Steve Ellcey ---
Created attachment 42491
--> https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=42491&action=edit
Patch that fixes the test case
Here is a possible patch. It fixes the test case and I am doing a bootstrap
and
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=82683
--- Comment #11 from Steve Ellcey ---
I think I see where this is going wrong but I don't know what to do about it.
In try_combine, line 3288 we have i2 and i3 of:
(insn 18 16 19 3 (set (reg:DI 91)
(ashift:DI (reg:DI 83 [ _26 ])
1 - 100 of 314 matches
Mail list logo