[Bug rtl-optimization/96264] [10 Regression] wrong code with -Os -fno-forward-propagate -fschedule-insns -fno-tree-ter
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=96264 seurer at gcc dot gnu.org changed: What|Removed |Added Resolution|--- |FIXED Status|REOPENED|RESOLVED --- Comment #23 from seurer at gcc dot gnu.org --- It works now on gcc 10
[Bug rtl-optimization/96264] [10 Regression] wrong code with -Os -fno-forward-propagate -fschedule-insns -fno-tree-ter
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=96264 --- Comment #22 from Vladimir Makarov --- I've committed the patch to gcc-10 branch. I also committed patch modifying the test -- see PR99233.
[Bug rtl-optimization/96264] [10 Regression] wrong code with -Os -fno-forward-propagate -fschedule-insns -fno-tree-ter
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=96264 --- Comment #21 from CVS Commits --- The releases/gcc-10 branch has been updated by Vladimir Makarov : https://gcc.gnu.org/g:1b7c97f25b271f826958873bda4fafc4cfc5b60d commit r10-9644-g1b7c97f25b271f826958873bda4fafc4cfc5b60d Author: Vladimir N. Makarov Date: Thu Feb 18 17:49:26 2021 -0500 [PR96264] LRA: Check output insn hard regs when updating available rematerialization after the insn Insn for rematerialization can contain a clobbered hard register. We can not move such insn through another insn setting up the same hard register. The patch adds such check. gcc/ChangeLog: PR rtl-optimization/96264 * lra-remat.c (reg_overlap_for_remat_p): Check also output insn hard regs. gcc/testsuite/ChangeLog: PR rtl-optimization/96264 * gcc.target/powerpc/pr96264.c: New.
[Bug rtl-optimization/96264] [10 Regression] wrong code with -Os -fno-forward-propagate -fschedule-insns -fno-tree-ter
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=96264 Tamar Christina changed: What|Removed |Added CC||tnfchris at gcc dot gnu.org --- Comment #20 from Tamar Christina --- (In reply to Vladimir Makarov from comment #19) > (In reply to Richard Biener from comment #18) > > Please somebody do it quick then (not omitting necessary testing, of > > course). > > I am working on it. It is my highest priority work. The patch is ready. > If the testing is ok (arm64 machines are a bottleneck for me), I'll commit > it today. That should hopefully be resolved soon https://github.com/WorksOnArm/cluster/issues/252
[Bug rtl-optimization/96264] [10 Regression] wrong code with -Os -fno-forward-propagate -fschedule-insns -fno-tree-ter
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=96264 --- Comment #19 from Vladimir Makarov --- (In reply to Richard Biener from comment #18) > Please somebody do it quick then (not omitting necessary testing, of course). I am working on it. It is my highest priority work. The patch is ready. If the testing is ok (arm64 machines are a bottleneck for me), I'll commit it today.
[Bug rtl-optimization/96264] [10 Regression] wrong code with -Os -fno-forward-propagate -fschedule-insns -fno-tree-ter
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=96264 --- Comment #18 from Richard Biener --- Please somebody do it quick then (not omitting necessary testing, of course).
[Bug rtl-optimization/96264] [10 Regression] wrong code with -Os -fno-forward-propagate -fschedule-insns -fno-tree-ter
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=96264 --- Comment #17 from Vladimir Makarov --- (In reply to Peter Bergner from comment #16) > (In reply to seurer from comment #15) > > It still fails on gcc 10, though > > Vlad, can we get this backported to GCC 10? Maybe in time for GCC 10.3? Nobody complained about this patch since its commit. So I believe we can backport it and the patch should be safe for GCC 10 branch.
[Bug rtl-optimization/96264] [10 Regression] wrong code with -Os -fno-forward-propagate -fschedule-insns -fno-tree-ter
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=96264 --- Comment #16 from Peter Bergner --- (In reply to seurer from comment #15) > It still fails on gcc 10, though Vlad, can we get this backported to GCC 10? Maybe in time for GCC 10.3?
