On Fri, 20 Nov 2015, Jeff Law wrote: > On 11/20/2015 10:04 AM, Senthil Kumar Selvaraj wrote: > > On Thu, Nov 19, 2015 at 10:31:41AM -0700, Jeff Law wrote: > > > On 11/18/2015 11:20 PM, Senthil Kumar Selvaraj wrote: > > > > On Wed, Nov 18, 2015 at 09:36:21AM +0100, Richard Biener wrote: > > > > > > > > > > Otherwise ok. > > > > > > > > See modified patch below. If you think vrp98.c is unnecessary, feel free > > > > to dump it :). > > > > > > > > If ok, could you commit it for me please? I don't have commit access. > > > > > > > > Regards > > > > Senthil > > > > > > > > gcc/ChangeLog > > > > 2015-11-19 Senthil Kumar Selvaraj <senthil_kumar.selva...@atmel.com> > > > > > > > > * tree.h (desired_pro_or_demotion_p): New function. > > > > * tree-vrp.c (simplify_cond_using_ranges): Call it. > > > > > > > > gcc/testsuite/ChangeLog > > > > 2015-11-19 Senthil Kumar Selvaraj <senthil_kumar.selva...@atmel.com> > > > > > > > > * gcc.dg/tree-ssa/vrp98.c: New testcase. > > > > * gcc.target/avr/uint8-single-reg.c: New testcase. > > > I went ahead and committed this as-is. > > > > > > I do think the vrp98 testcase is useful as it verifies that VRP is doing > > > what we want in a target independent way. It's a good complement to the > > > AVR > > > specific testcase. > > > > I see the same problem on gcc-5-branch as well. Would it be ok to > > backport the fix to that branch as well? > That's a call for the release managers. I typically don't backport anything > expect ICE or incorrect code generation fixes as I tend to be very > conservative on what goes onto a release branch. > > Jakub, Richi or Joseph would need to ack into a release branch.
As this is fixes a regression it qualifies in principle. But as it is an optimization regression only I'd prefer to wait a bit to look for fallout. Richard. > jeff > > -- Richard Biener <rguent...@suse.de> SUSE LINUX GmbH, GF: Felix Imendoerffer, Jane Smithard, Graham Norton, HRB 21284 (AG Nuernberg)
