Re: [Open64-devel] Review request for fix bug912(literal for operand 1 is not in range) [WOPT]

2011-11-28 Thread Sun Chan
without your change, what is the output of this function for the same input expr? Sun On Mon, Nov 28, 2011 at 10:50 AM, Gang Yu wrote: > opt_htable.cxx > 2244BOOL > 2245CODEMAP::Canon_cvt(WN *wn, > 2246 OPT_STAB *opt_stab, > 2247 STMTREP *stmt, > 2248

[Open64-devel] code review for fix of bug 926( compiler assertion for copy propagation of MLOAD ) [WOPT]

2011-11-28 Thread Yiran Wang
Hi All, Could a gatekeeper review this patch? The test case is as following, and the bug is triggered, when compiling it with -O2. #include struct x{ int y; int z; }; int foo() { struct x xyz,abc; int i; memset(&xyz,0,sizeof(xyz)); i = 1; while( i < 0 ) { abc.y += xyz.z;

Re: [Open64-devel] code review for fix of bug 926( compiler assertion for copy propagation of MLOAD ) [WOPT]

2011-11-28 Thread Sun Chan
your example should infinite loop. Pls double check before we further discuss this Sun On Tue, Nov 29, 2011 at 8:41 AM, Yiran Wang wrote: > Hi All, > > Could a gatekeeper review this patch? > > The test case is as following, and the bug is triggered, when compiling it > with -O2. > > #include

Re: [Open64-devel] Review request for fix bug912(literal for operand 1 is not in range) [WOPT]

2011-11-28 Thread Gang Yu
Before the change, the input expression is wrongly codemapped to >LDC I8 -2147483649 flags:0x0 b=-1 it should be rightly mapped to: > LDC I8 -2147483649 flags:0x0 b=-1 >U4I4CVT isop_flags:0x0 flags:0x0 b=-1 Regards Gang On Mon, Nov 28, 2011 at 8:22 PM, Sun Chan wrote: > without your chan

Re: [Open64-devel] Review request for fix bug912(literal for operand 1 is not in range) [WOPT]

2011-11-28 Thread Sun Chan
we can go on forever if you only want to give me minimum info. Pls send me the entire expr Sun On Tue, Nov 29, 2011 at 10:16 AM, Gang Yu wrote: > Before the change, the input expression is wrongly codemapped to > > >LDC I8 -2147483649 flags:0x0 b=-1 > > it should be rightly mapped to: > > > LD

Re: [Open64-devel] Review request for fix bug912(literal for operand 1 is not in range) [WOPT]

2011-11-28 Thread Gang Yu
On Mon, Nov 28, 2011 at 10:40 AM, Sun Chan wrote: > Sorry, pls send the corresponding function so I get a bigger picture of > what the deal is. It will be good to give me the expression tree before and > after this function call > > On Tue, Nov 29, 2011 at 10:40 AM, Sun Chan wrote: > we can go

Re: [Open64-devel] Review request for fix bug912(literal for operand 1 is not in range) [WOPT]

2011-11-28 Thread Sun Chan
I said, send me the entire expr (you just sent const and cvtl) I want to know why const became I8 where the input is I4 On Tue, Nov 29, 2011 at 10:49 AM, Gang Yu wrote: > On Mon, Nov 28, 2011 at 10:40 AM, Sun Chan wrote: > >> Sorry, pls send the corresponding function so I get a bigger picture

Re: [Open64-devel] Review request for fix bug912(literal for operand 1 is not in range) [WOPT]

2011-11-28 Thread Gang Yu
Sun, Before SSA, the whirl input for the statement BB3 (RPO 3) (LOGIF) (e) LINE 10 (rid_id:0) (flag:7) Preds:2 Succs:9 4 Fallthrough: 4 Next : BB4 Prev : BB2 dom_dfs_id(0), dom_dfs_last(0) pdom_dfs_id(0), pdom_dfs_last(0) U4U4LDID 0 T<8,.predef_U4,4> I4INTCONST 1 (0x1) I4I

Re: [Open64-devel] code review for fix of bug 926( compiler assertion for copy propagation of MLOAD ) [WOPT]

2011-11-28 Thread Yiran Wang
Em, I think you are saying that once entered, it would not exit, but the loop is not entered at the very beginning, as the initial test would fail. Regards, Yiran On Mon, Nov 28, 2011 at 6:15 PM, Sun Chan wrote: > your example should infinite loop. Pls double check before we further > discuss

Re: [Open64-devel] Review request for fix bug912(literal for operand 1 is not in range) [WOPT]

2011-11-28 Thread Sun Chan
just want to double check. You are saying, right after coderep creation, the I8 const appeared? Sun On Tue, Nov 29, 2011 at 11:39 AM, Gang Yu wrote: > Sun, > > Before SSA, the whirl input for the statement > > BB3 (RPO 3) (LOGIF) (e) LINE 10 (rid_id:0) (flag:7) > Preds:2 > Succs:9 4 > Fallt

Re: [Open64-devel] code review for fix of bug 926( compiler assertion for copy propagation of MLOAD ) [WOPT]

2011-11-28 Thread Sun Chan
Sorry, stupid of me. I understand wopt does not do copy prop of mload to mstore. OTOH, this had been a goal for a long time. Anyway you can make that work? Sun On Tue, Nov 29, 2011 at 12:37 PM, Yiran Wang wrote: > Em, I think you are saying that once entered, it would not exit, but the > loop is

Re: [Open64-devel] Review request x86-ppc cross compile

2011-11-28 Thread David Coakley
The build changes in the new patch look ok to me. Thanks for the explanation. -David Coakley / AMD Open Source Compiler Engineering 2011/11/28 Huan Luo : > Hi David, > Thanks very much for your comments. > In Makefile.in, ld-new wasn't left out on purpose and is added in now. > As for osprey-gcc

Re: [Open64-devel] Review request for fix bug912(literal for operand 1 is not in range) [WOPT]

2011-11-28 Thread Gang Yu
Last mail showed current trunk output, after patched: BB3 (RPO 3) (LOGIF) (e) LINE 0 (rid_id:0) (flag:207) Preds:2 Succs:9 4 Fallthrough: 4 Next : BB4 Prev : BB2 Idom : BB2 Ipdom : BB9 dom_dfs_id(2), dom_dfs_last(9) pdom_dfs_id(2), pdom_dfs_last(4) 9 4 Pdom :2 Dom Frontier :4 {} RCFG Dom

Re: [Open64-devel] compiling error cannot find -lgfortran

2011-11-28 Thread Chiheng Xu
On Sat, Nov 12, 2011 at 6:11 PM, Hanfeng Qin wrote: > Hello all, > I downloaded open64-5.0 and met a compiling error as follows: > --- > GEN    compiler_build_date.c > C > /home/hanfeng/Workspace/tools/build-open64/osprey/targdir/crayf90/sgi/compil > er_build_date.c > LD > /home/hanfeng/Worksp