https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=69252
--- Comment #12 from Jakub Jelinek ---
Thus, Roman, can you please post your patch to gcc-patches? Thanks.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=69252
--- Comment #13 from Roman Zhuykov ---
(In reply to Jakub Jelinek from comment #12)
> Thus, Roman, can you please post your patch to gcc-patches?
Ok, in addition to comment 3 link, reposted it right now
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=69252
--- Comment #9 from Martin Sebor ---
(In reply to Jakub Jelinek from comment #5)
> a) bootstrap/regtest it
The patch passes all C, C++, and FORTRAN tests with no regressions WRT
baxeline.
I'll look at (b) next.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=69252
--- Comment #11 from Martin Sebor ---
The following is a list of names of tests that fail in the baseline but not
with the patch:
c-c++-common/torture/pr53505.c
gcc.c-torture/execute/pr54471.c
gcc.c-torture/execute/pr61682.c
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=69252
--- Comment #10 from Martin Sebor ---
(In reply to Jakub Jelinek from comment #5)
> b) try make check -jN
> RUNTESTFLAGS='--target_board=unix/fmodulo-sched/-fmodulo-sched-allow-
> regmoves/-fsched-pressure' with unpatched vs. patched, see if it
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=69252
--- Comment #8 from Jakub Jelinek ---
(In reply to Roman Zhuykov from comment #7)
> (In reply to Jakub Jelinek from comment #5)
> > insufficient SMS testsuite coverage.
> Not sure it's helpful, but 3 weeks ago I succesfully reg-strapped some
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=69252
--- Comment #5 from Jakub Jelinek ---
(In reply to Martin Sebor from comment #4)
> Thanks for your help! I can confirm that the first patch fixes the problem
> in the test cases on powerpc64le. (I haven't done any other testing with
> it.)
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=69252
--- Comment #7 from Roman Zhuykov ---
(In reply to Jakub Jelinek from comment #5)
> insufficient SMS testsuite coverage.
Not sure it's helpful, but 3 weeks ago I succesfully reg-strapped some bunch of
my SMS patches including this fix on x86-64
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=69252
--- Comment #6 from Martin Sebor ---
(In reply to Jakub Jelinek from comment #5)
Sure, I was already planning to do some of it today.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=69252
Richard Biener changed:
What|Removed |Added
Priority|P3 |P2
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=69252
--- Comment #3 from Roman Zhuykov ---
I'll try to help. While working with expanding SMS functionality 4-5 years ago
(https://gcc.gnu.org/ml/gcc-patches/2011-07/msg01807.html), I create several
fixes not connected to my main non-doloop-support
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=69252
--- Comment #4 from Martin Sebor ---
Thanks for your help! I can confirm that the first patch fixes the problem in
the test cases on powerpc64le. (I haven't done any other testing with it.)
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=69252
--- Comment #2 from Jakub Jelinek ---
Looks like a SMS pass bug.
In the original loop there is a a[i] memory load followed by addition of i to
that, for understandable reasons SMS wants to move the load as far as possible
from the addition, so
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=69252
Martin Sebor changed:
What|Removed |Added
Target|powerpc64-unknown-linux-gnu |powerpc64*-unknown-linux-gn
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=69252
Andrew Pinski changed:
What|Removed |Added
Target Milestone|--- |4.9.4
15 matches
Mail list logo
