--- Comment #39 from chaoyingfu at gcc dot gnu dot org 2006-12-01 01:04
---
Subject: Bug 29680
Author: chaoyingfu
Date: Fri Dec 1 01:01:21 2006
New Revision: 119392
URL: http://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?root=gccview=revrev=119392
Log:
Merged revisions 118654-118785 via svnmerge from
--- Comment #37 from rakdver at gcc dot gnu dot org 2006-11-13 12:37
---
Subject: Bug 29680
Author: rakdver
Date: Mon Nov 13 12:37:29 2006
New Revision: 118754
URL: http://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?root=gccview=revrev=118754
Log:
PR tree-optimization/29680
*
--- Comment #38 from pinskia at gcc dot gnu dot org 2006-11-13 13:54
---
Fixed.
--
pinskia at gcc dot gnu dot org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|NEW
--- Comment #36 from rakdver at gcc dot gnu dot org 2006-11-12 17:33
---
(In reply to comment #19)
Created an attachment (id=12574)
-- (http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=12574action=view) [edit]
A patch
This reverts the patch which triggers the problem and adds a
--- Comment #20 from rakdver at gcc dot gnu dot org 2006-11-09 11:16
---
I am playing with some ideas how to fix this, unless I come up with
something
soon, I will revert the patch (except for the testcase that I would like to
remain in the testsuite).
The best I was able to do is
--- Comment #21 from dberlin at gcc dot gnu dot org 2006-11-09 15:06
---
Subject: Re: [4.3 Regression] Misscompilation of spec2006 gcc
On 9 Nov 2006 11:16:12 -, rakdver at gcc dot gnu dot org
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
--- Comment #20 from rakdver at gcc dot gnu dot org
--- Comment #22 from dnovillo at redhat dot com 2006-11-09 15:08 ---
Subject: Re: [4.3 Regression] Misscompilation
of spec2006 gcc
Daniel Berlin wrote on 11/09/06 10:05:
One thing i'm going to try later is to try to partition all the
stores/load statements and figure out how many
--- Comment #23 from hjl at lucon dot org 2006-11-09 15:47 ---
(In reply to comment #20)
I am playing with some ideas how to fix this, unless I come up with
something
soon, I will revert the patch (except for the testcase that I would like to
remain in the testsuite).
The
--- Comment #24 from dberlin at gcc dot gnu dot org 2006-11-09 17:22
---
Subject: Re: [4.3 Regression] Misscompilation of spec2006 gcc
On 11/9/06, Diego Novillo [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Daniel Berlin wrote on 11/09/06 10:05:
One thing i'm going to try later is to try to partition
--- Comment #25 from dnovillo at redhat dot com 2006-11-09 17:38 ---
Subject: Re: [4.3 Regression] Misscompilation
of spec2006 gcc
Daniel Berlin wrote on 11/09/06 12:22:
Right, but the difference is, In the scheme i propose, you'd never
have overlapping live ranges of vuse/vdefs,
--- Comment #26 from rakdver at atrey dot karlin dot mff dot cuni dot cz
2006-11-09 18:03 ---
Subject: Re: [4.3 Regression] Misscompilation of spec2006 gcc
Right, but the difference is, In the scheme i propose, you'd never
have overlapping live ranges of vuse/vdefs, and in
A detailed proposal:
So here is what i was thinking of. When i say symbols below, I mean
some VAR_DECL or structure that has a name (like our memory tags
do). A symbol is *not* a real variable that occurred in the user
program. When I say varaible i mean a variable that occurred in the
user
--- Comment #27 from dberlin at gcc dot gnu dot org 2006-11-09 18:21
---
Subject: Re: [4.3 Regression] Misscompilation of spec2006 gcc
A detailed proposal:
So here is what i was thinking of. When i say symbols below, I mean
some VAR_DECL or structure that has a name (like our
--- Comment #28 from dnovillo at gcc dot gnu dot org 2006-11-09 19:15
---
(In reply to comment #26)
I would very much like to see it compared with mem-ssa before mem-ssa
branch is merged.
Notice that the two approaches do not negate each other. Dan's proposal is a
smarter
--- Comment #29 from rakdver at atrey dot karlin dot mff dot cuni dot cz
2006-11-09 19:41 ---
Subject: Re: [4.3 Regression] Misscompilation of spec2006 gcc
I would very much like to see it compared with mem-ssa before mem-ssa
branch is merged.
Notice that the two approaches
--- Comment #30 from dnovillo at gcc dot gnu dot org 2006-11-09 19:48
---
(In reply to comment #29)
nevertheless, it is not obvious to me whether using mem-ssa over Daniel's
proposal would bring any significant gains, which I would like to have
Of course. If you are interested in
Memory SSA brings down the number of virtual operators to exactly one per
statement.
However, it does so in a way that makes the traditional things that
actually want to do cool memory optimizations, harder.
I'm still on the fence over whether it's a good idea or not.
verified before we
--- Comment #31 from dberlin at gcc dot gnu dot org 2006-11-09 21:28
---
Subject: Re: [4.3 Regression] Misscompilation of spec2006 gcc
Memory SSA brings down the number of virtual operators to exactly one per
statement.
However, it does so in a way that makes the traditional
In mem-ssa, you have VDEF's of the
same symbol all over the place.
version of a symbol
--- Comment #32 from dberlin at gcc dot gnu dot org 2006-11-09 21:29
---
Subject: Re: [4.3 Regression] Misscompilation of spec2006 gcc
In mem-ssa, you have VDEF's of the
same symbol all over the place.
version of a symbol
--
--- Comment #33 from dnovillo at redhat dot com 2006-11-09 21:48 ---
Subject: Re: [4.3 Regression] Misscompilation
of spec2006 gcc
dberlin at dberlin dot org wrote on 11/09/06 16:28:
Uh, LIM and store sinking are too. Roughly all of our memory
optimizations are.
They are?
--- Comment #34 from dberlin at gcc dot gnu dot org 2006-11-10 00:03
---
Subject: Re: [4.3 Regression] Misscompilation of spec2006 gcc
On 9 Nov 2006 21:48:25 -, dnovillo at redhat dot com
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
--- Comment #33 from dnovillo at redhat dot com 2006-11-09
--- Comment #35 from dberlin at gcc dot gnu dot org 2006-11-10 00:12
---
Subject: Re: [4.3 Regression] Misscompilation of spec2006 gcc
Take the above case.
If we simply use virtual variable versions to value number memory, we
will believe that *a and *b are possible stores to the
--- Comment #19 from hjl at lucon dot org 2006-11-09 01:53 ---
Created an attachment (id=12574)
-- (http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=12574action=view)
A patch
This reverts the patch which triggers the problem and adds a testcase. I
am running SPEC CPU 2006 now.
--
--- Comment #17 from rakdver at gcc dot gnu dot org 2006-11-07 13:19
---
Zdenek, can you revert your patch until we fix this?
It might be a month or two before i get back to it.
(Yeah, i know it sucks to have to do this, but)
I am not sure whether that would be helpful, since
--- Comment #18 from dberlin at gcc dot gnu dot org 2006-11-07 15:22
---
(In reply to comment #17)
Zdenek, can you revert your patch until we fix this?
It might be a month or two before i get back to it.
(Yeah, i know it sucks to have to do this, but)
I am not sure whether
--- Comment #14 from hjl at lucon dot org 2006-11-06 15:12 ---
I checked gcc 4.3. The same source code, which is miscompiled in gcc from
SPEC CPU 2006, is there. It is most likely that gcc 4.3 is also miscompiled
and now generating wrong unwind/debug info, if not wrong instructions.
Zdenek, can you revert your patch until we fix this?
It might be a month or two before i get back to it.
(Yeah, i know it sucks to have to do this, but)
On 6 Nov 2006 15:12:30 -, hjl at lucon dot org
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
--- Comment #14 from hjl at lucon dot org 2006-11-06
--- Comment #15 from dberlin at gcc dot gnu dot org 2006-11-06 16:28
---
Subject: Re: [4.3 Regression] Misscompilation of spec2006 gcc
Zdenek, can you revert your patch until we fix this?
It might be a month or two before i get back to it.
(Yeah, i know it sucks to have to do this,
--- Comment #16 from hjl at lucon dot org 2006-11-06 17:19 ---
I think we should add the testcase when the patch is reverted to prevent it
from happening again.
--
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=29680
--- Comment #12 from hjl at lucon dot org 2006-11-04 16:53 ---
Created an attachment (id=12547)
-- (http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=12547action=view)
A testcase to show array reference is ok
Gcc doesn't have a problem with array reference. That is if I change it
from
--- Comment #13 from pinskia at gcc dot gnu dot org 2006-11-04 17:28
---
(In reply to comment #12)
Created an attachment (id=12547)
-- (http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=12547action=view) [edit]
A testcase to show array reference is ok
Gcc doesn't have a problem with
--- Comment #8 from pinskia at gcc dot gnu dot org 2006-11-01 18:18 ---
This is more reason why we need a POINTER_PLUS_EXPR.
--
pinskia at gcc dot gnu dot org changed:
What|Removed |Added
--- Comment #9 from hjl at lucon dot org 2006-11-01 20:03 ---
Created an attachment (id=12529)
-- (http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=12529action=view)
A run-time testcase
Here is a run-time testcase:
[EMAIL PROTECTED] yyy]$ /usr/gcc-bad/bin/gcc -O2 bad.c
[EMAIL
--- Comment #10 from rakdver at atrey dot karlin dot mff dot cuni dot cz
2006-11-01 20:26 ---
Subject: Re: Misscompilation of spec2006 gcc
I will work around this problem by teaching PTA about casts from
nonpointers to pointers, which will cause it to end up with a nonlocal
--- Comment #11 from hjl at lucon dot org 2006-11-01 21:26 ---
Created an attachment (id=12530)
-- (http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=12530action=view)
An updates run-time testcase
This is smaller.
--
hjl at lucon dot org changed:
What|Removed
36 matches
Mail list logo
