https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=91109
Jakub Jelinek changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |RESOLVED
CC|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=91109
--- Comment #19 from Bernd Edlinger ---
Hope all is now working again.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=91109
--- Comment #18 from Bernd Edlinger ---
Author: edlinger
Date: Fri Aug 16 16:37:04 2019
New Revision: 274578
URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=274578=gcc=rev
Log:
2019-08-16 Bernd Edlinger
Backport from mainline
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=91109
--- Comment #17 from Bernd Edlinger ---
Author: edlinger
Date: Fri Aug 16 16:31:13 2019
New Revision: 274577
URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=274577=gcc=rev
Log:
2019-08-16 Bernd Edlinger
Backport from mainline
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=91109
--- Comment #16 from Bernd Edlinger ---
Author: edlinger
Date: Fri Aug 16 15:34:47 2019
New Revision: 274573
URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=274573=gcc=rev
Log:
2019-08-16 Bernd Edlinger
PR tree-optimization/91109
*
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=91109
--- Comment #15 from Christophe Lyon ---
Since r274532 (gcc-9-branch), I am seeing:
FAIL: gcc.c-torture/execute/20040709-1.c -O2 -flto -fuse-linker-plugin
-fno-fat-lto-objects execution test
target arm-none-linux-gnueabi
--with-mode arm
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=91109
--- Comment #14 from Bernd Edlinger ---
I can reproduce with trunk:
arm-linux-gnueabihf-gcc -S -O2 -mthumb -flto -fno-use-linker-plugin
20040709-1.c
but not with -O3 -g, neither with gcc-9 and my fix applied.
Nevertheless it is quite obvious
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=91109
--- Comment #13 from Bernd Edlinger ---
Created attachment 46704
--> https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=46704=edit
another untested patch
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=91109
--- Comment #12 from Christophe Lyon ---
Indeed, although r274163 fixes the problem I reported, it also introduces a
regression when compiling the very same testcase but adding -mthumb:
FAIL: gcc.c-torture/execute/20040709-1.c -O2 (internal
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=91109
--- Comment #11 from Bernd Edlinger ---
No, it needs to be back-ported to gcc-9.3 (i am still reg-testing)
and Vladimir Makarov wrote the following:
https://gcc.gnu.org/ml/gcc-patches/2019-08/msg00463.html
> Still I think more work on the PR is
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=91109
Martin Liška changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||marxin at gcc dot gnu.org
--- Comment
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=91109
--- Comment #9 from Bernd Edlinger ---
Author: edlinger
Date: Wed Aug 7 13:45:06 2019
New Revision: 274163
URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=274163=gcc=rev
Log:
2019-08-07 Bernd Edlinger
PR tree-optimization/91109
*
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=91109
--- Comment #8 from Bernd Edlinger ---
Patch is posted here: https://gcc.gnu.org/ml/gcc-patches/2019-08/msg00305.html
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=91109
--- Comment #7 from Bernd Edlinger ---
I can reproduce this defect with gcc-9 (!)
$ ../gcc-9-branch/configure --prefix=/home/ed/gnu/arm-linux-gnueabihf-linux64-1
--target=arm-linux-gnueabihf --enable-languages=c,c++ --with-arch=armv7-a
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=91109
--- Comment #6 from Bernd Edlinger ---
with this patch the relevant part if the reload dump file looks different:
(insn 3414 6591 6682 129 (set (mem/c:SI (reg/f:SI 5 r5 [5715]) [1
s.5566D.5531+0 S4 A32])
(reg:SI 6 r6 [orig:828 _821 ]
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=91109
--- Comment #5 from Bernd Edlinger ---
Created attachment 46654
--> https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=46654=edit
untested patch
It looks like update_scratch_ops creates a copy of the original scratch
register, but the new scratch
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=91109
Bernd Edlinger changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||bernd.edlinger at hotmail dot
de
---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=91109
--- Comment #3 from rguenther at suse dot de ---
On Mon, 8 Jul 2019, clyon at gcc dot gnu.org wrote:
> https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=91109
>
> --- Comment #2 from Christophe Lyon ---
> Removing the test*() calls from the end,
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=91109
--- Comment #2 from Christophe Lyon ---
Removing the test*() calls from the end, the first failing one is testX().
However, if I remove all the preceding ones, the test passes.
Using -fwhole-program instead of -flto has no effect: the test
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=91109
Richard Biener changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||rguenth at gcc dot gnu.org
Target
20 matches
Mail list logo
