[Bug rtl-optimization/38644] [4.3/4.4/4.5/4.6 Regression] Optimization flag -O1 -fschedule-insns2 causes wrong code

2011-02-07 Thread law at redhat dot com
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=38644 Jeffrey A. Law law at redhat dot com changed: What|Removed |Added CC||law at redhat dot

[Bug rtl-optimization/38644] [4.3/4.4/4.5/4.6 Regression] Optimization flag -O1 -fschedule-insns2 causes wrong code

2011-01-31 Thread joel at gcc dot gnu.org
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=38644 Joel Sherrill joel at gcc dot gnu.org changed: What|Removed |Added Known to fail|| --- Comment #33

[Bug rtl-optimization/38644] [4.3/4.4/4.5/4.6 Regression] Optimization flag -O1 -fschedule-insns2 causes wrong code

2010-09-30 Thread sebastian.hu...@embedded-brains.de
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=38644 --- Comment #32 from Sebastian Huber sebastian.hu...@embedded-brains.de 2010-09-30 15:36:02 UTC --- Which target milestone do you intend for a fix? It is still present in 4.6.0 20100925.

[Bug rtl-optimization/38644] [4.3/4.4/4.5/4.6 Regression] Optimization flag -O1 -fschedule-insns2 causes wrong code

2010-08-30 Thread rguenth at gcc dot gnu dot org
--- Comment #30 from rguenth at gcc dot gnu dot org 2010-08-30 15:48 --- A regression but no known-to-work version? -- rguenth at gcc dot gnu dot org changed: What|Removed |Added

[Bug rtl-optimization/38644] [4.3/4.4/4.5/4.6 Regression] Optimization flag -O1 -fschedule-insns2 causes wrong code

2010-08-30 Thread mikpe at it dot uu dot se
--- Comment #31 from mikpe at it dot uu dot se 2010-08-30 18:59 --- (In reply to comment #30) A regression but no known-to-work version? 4.2.4 is known to work. See http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=44091#c5 -- http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=38644

[Bug rtl-optimization/38644] [4.3/4.4/4.5/4.6 Regression] Optimization flag -O1 -fschedule-insns2 causes wrong code

2010-08-12 Thread steven at gcc dot gnu dot org
--- Comment #19 from steven at gcc dot gnu dot org 2010-08-12 10:00 --- According to comment#14, a patch from Alexander Monakov introduced this bug, therefore: 1. this is a regression on a primary platform = priority should be set P1 -- steven at gcc dot gnu dot org changed:

[Bug rtl-optimization/38644] [4.3/4.4/4.5/4.6 Regression] Optimization flag -O1 -fschedule-insns2 causes wrong code

2010-08-12 Thread steven at gcc dot gnu dot org
--- Comment #20 from steven at gcc dot gnu dot org 2010-08-12 10:00 --- ...and 2. Add richi and amonakov to CC: -- http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=38644

[Bug rtl-optimization/38644] [4.3/4.4/4.5/4.6 Regression] Optimization flag -O1 -fschedule-insns2 causes wrong code

2010-08-12 Thread steven at gcc dot gnu dot org
--- Comment #21 from steven at gcc dot gnu dot org 2010-08-12 10:08 --- Re. comment #14 I am a bit irritated why this bug survived the 4.4.0 and 4.5.0 release.: Yes, well, ARM maintainers have been in the CC-list for this bug since the beginning, and apparently it was even too much

[Bug rtl-optimization/38644] [4.3/4.4/4.5/4.6 Regression] Optimization flag -O1 -fschedule-insns2 causes wrong code

2010-08-12 Thread amonakov at gcc dot gnu dot org
--- Comment #22 from amonakov at gcc dot gnu dot org 2010-08-12 10:12 --- It looks like patch from comment #16 should fix the problem, but was not reviewed and/or applied. -- http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=38644

[Bug rtl-optimization/38644] [4.3/4.4/4.5/4.6 Regression] Optimization flag -O1 -fschedule-insns2 causes wrong code

2010-08-12 Thread steven at gcc dot gnu dot org
--- Comment #23 from steven at gcc dot gnu dot org 2010-08-12 11:37 --- The patch from comment #16 only fixes the symptom, and only on ARM. It is not a proper fix for the generic problem that is apparently also visible on POWER. -- http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=38644

[Bug rtl-optimization/38644] [4.3/4.4/4.5/4.6 Regression] Optimization flag -O1 -fschedule-insns2 causes wrong code

2010-08-12 Thread jakub at gcc dot gnu dot org
--- Comment #24 from jakub at gcc dot gnu dot org 2010-08-12 11:47 --- It is not visible on POWER, because it has been fixed there. -- http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=38644

[Bug rtl-optimization/38644] [4.3/4.4/4.5/4.6 Regression] Optimization flag -O1 -fschedule-insns2 causes wrong code

2010-08-12 Thread amonakov at gcc dot gnu dot org
--- Comment #25 from amonakov at gcc dot gnu dot org 2010-08-12 12:00 --- (In reply to comment #23) The patch from comment #16 only fixes the symptom, and only on ARM. It is not a proper fix for the generic problem that is apparently also visible on POWER. PR30282 audit trail

[Bug rtl-optimization/38644] [4.3/4.4/4.5/4.6 Regression] Optimization flag -O1 -fschedule-insns2 causes wrong code

2010-08-12 Thread rguenth at gcc dot gnu dot org
--- Comment #26 from rguenth at gcc dot gnu dot org 2010-08-12 12:04 --- (In reply to comment #19) According to comment#14, a patch from Alexander Monakov introduced this bug, therefore: 1. this is a regression on a primary platform = priority should be set P1 It's not P1 because

[Bug rtl-optimization/38644] [4.3/4.4/4.5/4.6 Regression] Optimization flag -O1 -fschedule-insns2 causes wrong code

2010-08-12 Thread rearnsha at gcc dot gnu dot org
--- Comment #27 from rearnsha at gcc dot gnu dot org 2010-08-12 12:13 --- (In reply to comment #21) Re. comment #14 I am a bit irritated why this bug survived the 4.4.0 and 4.5.0 release.: Yes, well, ARM maintainers have been in the CC-list for this bug since the beginning, and

[Bug rtl-optimization/38644] [4.3/4.4/4.5/4.6 Regression] Optimization flag -O1 -fschedule-insns2 causes wrong code

2010-08-12 Thread jakub at gcc dot gnu dot org
--- Comment #28 from jakub at gcc dot gnu dot org 2010-08-12 12:26 --- The problem is that stuff like red-zone presence and size isn't known to the middle-end, all that stuff is backend private, so I think the right way is to handle this in the backends and most of the backends managed

[Bug rtl-optimization/38644] [4.3/4.4/4.5/4.6 Regression] Optimization flag -O1 -fschedule-insns2 causes wrong code

2010-08-12 Thread rearnsha at gcc dot gnu dot org
--- Comment #29 from rearnsha at gcc dot gnu dot org 2010-08-12 12:30 --- (In reply to comment #28) The problem is that stuff like red-zone presence and size isn't known to the middle-end, all that stuff is backend private, so I think the right way is to handle this in the backends