https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=88900
--- Comment #11 from Martin Liška ---
(In reply to rguent...@suse.de from comment #10)
> On Wed, 23 Jan 2019, marxin at gcc dot gnu.org wrote:
>
> > https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=88900
> >
> > Martin Liška changed:
> >
> >
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=88900
--- Comment #10 from rguenther at suse dot de ---
On Wed, 23 Jan 2019, marxin at gcc dot gnu.org wrote:
> https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=88900
>
> Martin Liška changed:
>
>What|Removed |Added
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=88900
Martin Liška changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|ASSIGNED|RESOLVED
Resolution|---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=88900
Martin Liška changed:
What|Removed |Added
Keywords|needs-reduction |
--- Comment #8 from Martin Liška ---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=88900
--- Comment #7 from Martin Liška ---
Using -flto only for tree-ssa-reassoc.o produces the miscompiled GCC (other
files are takes from -O2 -fno-lto build).
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=88900
--- Comment #6 from Martin Liška ---
I first isolated minimal test-case for which I can see the miscompilation of
the benchmark compiler:
$ cat scilab.c
int a, b, c, d;
void e() { a = (d >= c ? d : c) - 1 + b; }
$ bash -x ./reduce-ice.sh
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=88900
Martin Liška changed:
What|Removed |Added
Keywords|needs-bisection |
Status|NEW
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=88900
--- Comment #4 from Martin Liška ---
(In reply to H.J. Lu from comment #3)
> Is this the same as PR 87214?
No, this one is probably related to RPO VN, I'm not finished with bisection.
And it also happens on non-avx512 targets.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=88900
H.J. Lu changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||hjl.tools at gmail dot com
--- Comment #3
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=88900
--- Comment #2 from Jan Hubicka ---
> What a surprise, started with r267883. I'll carry on bisection with --param
> inline-unit-growth=40.
Well, I guess I can't claim that this is not gcc bug but it is the
benchmark that is broken :)
Honza
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=88900
Martin Liška changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||hubicka at gcc dot gnu.org
--- Comment
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=88900
Martin Liška changed:
What|Removed |Added
Priority|P3 |P1
Status|UNCONFIRMED
12 matches
Mail list logo
