On 05/23/2018 07:42 PM, H.J. Lu wrote:
On Wed, May 23, 2018 at 3:41 PM, H.J. Lu <hjl.to...@gmail.com> wrote:
On Wed, May 23, 2018 at 3:35 PM, H.J. Lu <hjl.to...@gmail.com> wrote:
Sorry. Does the following fix it for i686?
Index: gcc/tree-ssa-loop-prefetch.c
===================================================================
--- gcc/tree-ssa-loop-prefetch.c (revision 260625)
+++ gcc/tree-ssa-loop-prefetch.c (working copy)
@@ -1014,7 +1014,8 @@
fprintf (dump_file,
"Step for reference %u:%u (%ld) is less than the mininum "
^^^ Please use
HOST_WIDE_INT_PRINT_DEC
"required stride of %d\n",
- ref->group->uid, ref->uid, int_cst_value (ref->group->step),
+ ref->group->uid, ref->uid,
+ (HOST_WIDE_INT) int_cst_value (ref->group->step),
PREFETCH_MINIMUM_STRIDE);
Something like this.
--
H.J.
---
diff --git a/gcc/tree-ssa-loop-prefetch.c b/gcc/tree-ssa-loop-prefetch.c
index c3e7fd1e529..949a67f360e 100644
--- a/gcc/tree-ssa-loop-prefetch.c
+++ b/gcc/tree-ssa-loop-prefetch.c
@@ -1012,8 +1012,8 @@ should_issue_prefetch_p (struct mem_ref *ref)
{
if (dump_file && (dump_flags & TDF_DETAILS))
fprintf (dump_file,
- "Step for reference %u:%u (%ld) is less than the mininum "
- "required stride of %d\n",
+ "Step for reference %u:%u (" HOST_WIDE_INT_PRINT_C
+ ") is less than the mininum required stride of %d\n",
ref->group->uid, ref->uid, int_cst_value (ref->group->step),
PREFETCH_MINIMUM_STRIDE);
return false;
I meant:
diff --git a/gcc/tree-ssa-loop-prefetch.c b/gcc/tree-ssa-loop-prefetch.c
index c3e7fd1e529..e34b78dc186 100644
--- a/gcc/tree-ssa-loop-prefetch.c
+++ b/gcc/tree-ssa-loop-prefetch.c
@@ -1012,8 +1012,8 @@ should_issue_prefetch_p (struct mem_ref *ref)
{
if (dump_file && (dump_flags & TDF_DETAILS))
fprintf (dump_file,
- "Step for reference %u:%u (%ld) is less than the mininum "
- "required stride of %d\n",
+ "Step for reference %u:%u (" HOST_WIDE_INT_PRINT_DEC
+ ") is less than the mininum required stride of %d\n",
ref->group->uid, ref->uid, int_cst_value (ref->group->step),
PREFETCH_MINIMUM_STRIDE);
return false;
Pushed now. Sorry for the breakage.
For future reference, is there an i686 system on the gcc farm that i can
use to validate this?
Thanks,
Luis
