[Bug rtl-optimization/38740] Incorrect delayed branch optimization

2009-01-07 Thread dave at hiauly1 dot hia dot nrc dot ca


--- Comment #6 from dave at hiauly1 dot hia dot nrc dot ca  2009-01-07 
17:27 ---
Subject: Re:  Incorrect delayed branch optimization

 I've seen that on the SPARC too.  Does Richard's patch in
 
 http://gcc.gnu.org/ml/gcc-patches/2007-12/msg00506.html
 
 help?  If so, it is approved for mainline and 4.3 branch.

It didn't help.  It may have caused these fails:

FAIL: gcc.c-torture/execute/pr34415.c compilation,  -O0
FAIL: gcc.c-torture/execute/pr34415.c compilation,  -O1
FAIL: gcc.c-torture/execute/pr34415.c compilation,  -O2
FAIL: gcc.c-torture/execute/pr34415.c compilation,  -O3 -fomit-frame-pointer
FAIL: gcc.c-torture/execute/pr34415.c compilation,  -O3 -fomit-frame-pointer
-funroll-loops
FAIL: gcc.c-torture/execute/pr34415.c compilation,  -O3 -fomit-frame-pointer
-funroll-all-loops -finline-functions
FAIL: gcc.c-torture/execute/pr34415.c compilation,  -O3 -g
FAIL: gcc.c-torture/execute/pr34415.c compilation,  -Os

Dave


-- 


http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=38740



[Bug rtl-optimization/38740] Incorrect delayed branch optimization

2009-01-06 Thread ebotcazou at gcc dot gnu dot org


--- Comment #4 from ebotcazou at gcc dot gnu dot org  2009-01-06 13:27 
---
Please fill in the known to work field if you can.


-- 

ebotcazou at gcc dot gnu dot org changed:

   What|Removed |Added

  Component|middle-end  |rtl-optimization


http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=38740



[Bug rtl-optimization/38740] Incorrect delayed branch optimization

2009-01-06 Thread dave at hiauly1 dot hia dot nrc dot ca


--- Comment #5 from dave at hiauly1 dot hia dot nrc dot ca  2009-01-06 
14:57 ---
Subject: Re:  Incorrect delayed branch optimization

 Please fill in the known to work field if you can.

Unfortunately, this testcase also triggered a bug in the delayed branch
handling in the PA backend.  This was introduced in 3.4.  So, I need to
rebuild earlier versions to determine whether this problem is a regression.

Dave


-- 


http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=38740