[Bug tree-optimization/35629] [4.4 Regression] gcc.dg/tree-ssa/loop-25.c scan-tree-dump-times profile fails

2009-01-30 Thread hubicka at gcc dot gnu dot org
--- Comment #10 from hubicka at gcc dot gnu dot org 2009-01-30 08:00 --- Yes, it is harmless, so P4 should be better match. The test is checking that loop disambugiation is done one way not the other way while both are correct choices. Honza -- hubicka at gcc dot gnu dot org

[Bug tree-optimization/35629] [4.4 Regression] gcc.dg/tree-ssa/loop-25.c scan-tree-dump-times profile fails

2008-12-04 Thread jakub at gcc dot gnu dot org
--- Comment #9 from jakub at gcc dot gnu dot org 2008-12-04 12:35 --- Honza, any news on this? If it is really harmless, maybe we should just make it P4, not P2. -- http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=35629

[Bug tree-optimization/35629] [4.4 Regression] gcc.dg/tree-ssa/loop-25.c scan-tree-dump-times profile fails

2008-04-20 Thread rguenth at gcc dot gnu dot org
-- rguenth at gcc dot gnu dot org changed: What|Removed |Added Priority|P3 |P2 http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=35629

[Bug tree-optimization/35629] [4.4 Regression] gcc.dg/tree-ssa/loop-25.c scan-tree-dump-times profile fails

2008-04-15 Thread hp at gcc dot gnu dot org
--- Comment #8 from hp at gcc dot gnu dot org 2008-04-16 02:44 --- Subject: Bug 35629 Author: hp Date: Wed Apr 16 02:44:01 2008 New Revision: 134339 URL: http://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?root=gccview=revrev=134339 Log: PR tree-optimization/35629 * gcc.dg/tree-ssa/loop-25.c:

[Bug tree-optimization/35629] [4.4 Regression] gcc.dg/tree-ssa/loop-25.c scan-tree-dump-times profile fails

2008-04-09 Thread hp at gcc dot gnu dot org
--- Comment #7 from hp at gcc dot gnu dot org 2008-04-10 00:03 --- (In reply to comment #6) I am discussing with Zdenek the proper fix. Any conclusion in sight? If not, I'll xfail this as per protocol. -- http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=35629

[Bug tree-optimization/35629] [4.4 Regression] gcc.dg/tree-ssa/loop-25.c scan-tree-dump-times profile fails

2008-03-19 Thread ubizjak at gmail dot com
--- Comment #3 from ubizjak at gmail dot com 2008-03-19 06:58 --- *** Bug 35636 has been marked as a duplicate of this bug. *** -- ubizjak at gmail dot com changed: What|Removed |Added

[Bug tree-optimization/35629] [4.4 Regression] gcc.dg/tree-ssa/loop-25.c scan-tree-dump-times profile fails

2008-03-19 Thread hjl dot tools at gmail dot com
--- Comment #4 from hjl dot tools at gmail dot com 2008-03-19 13:23 --- I think revision 133313 http://gcc.gnu.org/ml/gcc-cvs/2008-03/msg00531.html is the cause. -- http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=35629

[Bug tree-optimization/35629] [4.4 Regression] gcc.dg/tree-ssa/loop-25.c scan-tree-dump-times profile fails

2008-03-19 Thread danglin at gcc dot gnu dot org
--- Comment #5 from danglin at gcc dot gnu dot org 2008-03-19 22:58 --- Also seen on hppa. -- danglin at gcc dot gnu dot org changed: What|Removed |Added

[Bug tree-optimization/35629] [4.4 Regression] gcc.dg/tree-ssa/loop-25.c scan-tree-dump-times profile fails

2008-03-19 Thread hubicka at ucw dot cz
--- Comment #6 from hubicka at ucw dot cz 2008-03-19 23:06 --- Subject: Re: [4.4 Regression] gcc.dg/tree-ssa/loop-25.c scan-tree-dump-times profile fails This seems to affect about every target, but it is essentially harmless. I am discussing with Zdenek the proper fix. Honza --

[Bug tree-optimization/35629] [4.4 Regression] gcc.dg/tree-ssa/loop-25.c scan-tree-dump-times profile fails

2008-03-18 Thread rguenth at gcc dot gnu dot org
-- rguenth at gcc dot gnu dot org changed: What|Removed |Added Keywords||missed-optimization Summary|gcc.dg/tree-ssa/loop-25.c

[Bug tree-optimization/35629] [4.4 Regression] gcc.dg/tree-ssa/loop-25.c scan-tree-dump-times profile fails

2008-03-18 Thread hp at gcc dot gnu dot org
--- Comment #2 from hp at gcc dot gnu dot org 2008-03-19 03:07 --- My autotester says loop-25 fails in the same way for cris-elf, due to a patch committed in the range 133311:133318. -- hp at gcc dot gnu dot org changed: What|Removed |Added