[Bug testsuite/42855] FAIL: gcc.dg/tree-ssa/pr42585.c scan-tree-dump-times optimized *

2010-09-01 Thread jamborm at gcc dot gnu dot org 


--- Comment #9 from jamborm at gcc dot gnu dot org  2010-09-01 11:13 ---
Fixed.


-- 

jamborm at gcc dot gnu dot org changed:

   What|Removed |Added

 Status|NEW |RESOLVED
 Resolution||FIXED


http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=42855

[Bug testsuite/42855] FAIL: gcc.dg/tree-ssa/pr42585.c scan-tree-dump-times optimized *

2010-08-05 Thread jamborm at gcc dot gnu dot org 


--- Comment #8 from jamborm at gcc dot gnu dot org  2010-08-05 13:36 ---
Subject: Bug 42855

Author: jamborm
Date: Thu Aug  5 13:36:18 2010
New Revision: 162913

URL: http://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?root=gccview=revrev=162913
Log:
2010-08-05  Martin Jambor  mjam...@suse.cz

PR testsuite/42855
* testsuite/gcc.dg/tree-ssa/pr42585.c: Skip dump scan on powerpc
and arm.


Modified:
trunk/gcc/testsuite/ChangeLog
trunk/gcc/testsuite/gcc.dg/tree-ssa/pr42585.c


-- 


http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=42855

[Bug testsuite/42855] FAIL: gcc.dg/tree-ssa/pr42585.c scan-tree-dump-times optimized *

2010-08-04 Thread jamborm at gcc dot gnu dot org 


--- Comment #7 from jamborm at gcc dot gnu dot org  2010-08-04 19:33 ---
(In reply to comment #6)
 I think the thread about the patch became confused.
 
 First, Janis essentially approved the testsuite patch.

OK, I've re-submitted the patch to the mailing list and will commit it
tomorrow if nobody objects.  Thanks.

 
 Second, Martin commented that the failure probably was due to MOVE_RATIO not
 defined.  The statement caused some misunderstanding.  MOVE_RATIO does not 
 need
 to be defined and the failure is not caused by a missing definition.  The
 default value of MOVE_RATIO (used by PPC and ARM) cause the heuristic to
 disable the optimization being tested.
 
 If the optimization is not expected to occur on some platforms, then the
 testcase should be disabled as implemented by the patch or the testcase
 explicitly should set some gcc param that ensures the optimization will occur
 on all targets.
 

Well, MOVE_RATIO defines the ratio of costs of different methods of
copying memory.  Assuming that the default value is indeed the correct
one for those platforms, it is most probably OK that SRA decides not
to totally scalarize the aggregate in the testcase in question.  But
that is really what the platform maintainers should examine (or at
least someone who knows the platforms well enough should do it).


-- 


http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=42855

[Bug testsuite/42855] FAIL: gcc.dg/tree-ssa/pr42585.c scan-tree-dump-times optimized *

2010-07-21 Thread jamborm at gcc dot gnu dot org 


--- Comment #5 from jamborm at gcc dot gnu dot org  2010-07-21 17:19 ---
(In reply to comment #4)
 Based on the last post in the patch thread should the patch be committed so 
 the
 testsuite failures go away and this can be closed?
 

I do not think I got an approval to commit the patch.  I'll be happy
to cooperate with respective architecture maintainers to resolve this
issue in one way or another.  (However, this is not important enough
for me to go and actively try to force their attention this way.)


-- 


http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=42855

[Bug testsuite/42855] FAIL: gcc.dg/tree-ssa/pr42585.c scan-tree-dump-times optimized *

2010-07-21 Thread dje at gcc dot gnu dot org 


--- Comment #6 from dje at gcc dot gnu dot org  2010-07-21 23:52 ---
I think the thread about the patch became confused.

First, Janis essentially approved the testsuite patch.

Second, Martin commented that the failure probably was due to MOVE_RATIO not
defined.  The statement caused some misunderstanding.  MOVE_RATIO does not need
to be defined and the failure is not caused by a missing definition.  The
default value of MOVE_RATIO (used by PPC and ARM) cause the heuristic to
disable the optimization being tested.

If the optimization is not expected to occur on some platforms, then the
testcase should be disabled as implemented by the patch or the testcase
explicitly should set some gcc param that ensures the optimization will occur
on all targets.


-- 

dje at gcc dot gnu dot org changed:

   What|Removed |Added

 CC||dje at gcc dot gnu dot org
 Status|UNCONFIRMED |NEW
 Ever Confirmed|0   |1
   Last reconfirmed|-00-00 00:00:00 |2010-07-21 23:52:38
   date||


http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=42855

[Bug testsuite/42855] FAIL: gcc.dg/tree-ssa/pr42585.c scan-tree-dump-times optimized *

2010-07-14 Thread pthaugen at gcc dot gnu dot org 


--- Comment #4 from pthaugen at gcc dot gnu dot org  2010-07-14 18:18 
---
Based on the last post in the patch thread should the patch be committed so the
testsuite failures go away and this can be closed?


-- 


http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=42855

[Bug testsuite/42855] FAIL: gcc.dg/tree-ssa/pr42585.c scan-tree-dump-times optimized *

2010-03-04 Thread jamborm at gcc dot gnu dot org 


--- Comment #3 from jamborm at gcc dot gnu dot org  2010-03-04 14:55 ---
Patch submitted to the mailing list:
http://gcc.gnu.org/ml/gcc-patches/2010-03/msg00208.html


-- 

jamborm at gcc dot gnu dot org changed:

   What|Removed |Added

 CC|mjambor at suse dot cz  |jamborm at gcc dot gnu dot
   ||org


http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=42855

[Bug testsuite/42855] FAIL: gcc.dg/tree-ssa/pr42585.c scan-tree-dump-times optimized *

2010-01-24 Thread rguenth at gcc dot gnu dot org 


--- Comment #1 from rguenth at gcc dot gnu dot org  2010-01-24 16:58 ---
It's a new test.  Probably MOVE_RATIO is not defined for your target and thus
the default of 2 applies.


-- 


http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=42855