[Bug tree-optimization/30194] [4.3 Regression] gcc.dg/pr19633-1.c fails on the mainline
--- Comment #15 from danglin at gcc dot gnu dot org 2007-12-19 01:52 --- This went away in mid July on hppa. -- danglin at gcc dot gnu dot org changed: What|Removed |Added CC|danglin at gcc dot gnu dot | |org | http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=30194
[Bug tree-optimization/30194] [4.3 Regression] gcc.dg/pr19633-1.c fails on the mainline
-- steven at gcc dot gnu dot org changed: What|Removed |Added Status|ASSIGNED|WAITING http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=30194
[Bug tree-optimization/30194] [4.3 Regression] gcc.dg/pr19633-1.c fails on the mainline
--- Comment #14 from steven at gcc dot gnu dot org 2007-12-18 23:17 --- Dave, Does the test case pass again if you increase the VOPS threshold once more? -- http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=30194
[Bug tree-optimization/30194] [4.3 Regression] gcc.dg/pr19633-1.c fails on the mainline
--- Comment #13 from danglin at gcc dot gnu dot org 2007-07-02 19:00 --- This has started failing again on hppa-unknown-linux-gnu as of 20070701. -- danglin at gcc dot gnu dot org changed: What|Removed |Added CC||danglin at gcc dot gnu dot ||org http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=30194
[Bug tree-optimization/30194] [4.3 Regression] gcc.dg/pr19633-1.c fails on the mainline
-- mmitchel at gcc dot gnu dot org changed: What|Removed |Added Priority|P3 |P2 http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=30194
[Bug tree-optimization/30194] [4.3 Regression] gcc.dg/pr19633-1.c fails on the mainline
--- Comment #12 from dnovillo at gcc dot gnu dot org 2006-12-14 19:50 --- Subject: Bug 30194 Author: dnovillo Date: Thu Dec 14 19:50:11 2006 New Revision: 119867 URL: http://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?root=gcc&view=rev&rev=119867 Log: PR 30194 * gcc.dg/pr19633-1.c: Increase threshold for partitioning temporarily. Modified: trunk/gcc/testsuite/ChangeLog trunk/gcc/testsuite/gcc.dg/pr19633-1.c -- http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=30194
[Bug tree-optimization/30194] [4.3 Regression] gcc.dg/pr19633-1.c fails on the mainline
--- Comment #11 from dnovillo at gcc dot gnu dot org 2006-12-14 19:29
---
(In reply to comment #10)
> (In reply to comment #9)
> > (In reply to comment #8)
> > > There must be. mem-ssa is @119760. If you can reproduce with @119760,
> > > then
> > > let me know and I'll take a look.
> >
> > I can reproduce it at @119761 which is the same revision for the trunk as
> > 119761 was a revision on a branch.
> >
> OK, I'll take a look. FX mind sending me that data about the test? I can't
> reproduce it locally.
>
Oh, boy. Now I see it. We are making different partitioning decisions because
the order of the symbols in the partitioned alias set changed. So, sometimes
we get one SFT into a partition which just happens to cross a call-site, and if
it's added to the partition, we miss the optimization. In this case, the SFT
associated with b.s.w is added to MPT.69.
:;
# MPT.69_8 = VDEF { MPT.69 }
b.s.w = 3;
# VUSE { SFT.54 SFT.55 SFT.56
SFT.62 }
# SFT.62_13 = VDEF
# MPT.69_14 = VDEF { SFT.62 MPT.69 }
x = bar1 (*c_1, *c_1);
# VUSE { MPT.69 }
D.1993_6 = b.s.w;
But if aliases are stored in different order in the alias set (different
DECL_UID assignment), we just happen not to choose this SFT for partitioning,
leaving the IL as:
:;
# SFT.61_8 = VDEF { SFT.61 }
b.s.w = 3;
# VUSE { SFT.58 SFT.59
SFT.60 SFT.61 }
# MPT.69_13 = VDEF { MPT.69 }
x = bar1 (*c_1, *c_1);
# VUSE { SFT.61 }
D.1990_6 = b.s.w;
I will workaround this by increasing partitioning thresholds on this test, for
now, but I will leave the PR assigned to me while I figure out better
partitioning heuristics.
--
dnovillo at gcc dot gnu dot org changed:
What|Removed |Added
AssignedTo|unassigned at gcc dot gnu |dnovillo at gcc dot gnu dot
|dot org |org
Status|UNCONFIRMED |ASSIGNED
Ever Confirmed|0 |1
Last reconfirmed|-00-00 00:00:00 |2006-12-14 19:29:22
date||
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=30194
[Bug tree-optimization/30194] [4.3 Regression] gcc.dg/pr19633-1.c fails on the mainline
--- Comment #10 from dnovillo at gcc dot gnu dot org 2006-12-13 22:37 --- (In reply to comment #9) > (In reply to comment #8) > > There must be. mem-ssa is @119760. If you can reproduce with @119760, then > > let me know and I'll take a look. > > I can reproduce it at @119761 which is the same revision for the trunk as > 119761 was a revision on a branch. > OK, I'll take a look. FX mind sending me that data about the test? I can't reproduce it locally. -- http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=30194
[Bug tree-optimization/30194] [4.3 Regression] gcc.dg/pr19633-1.c fails on the mainline
--- Comment #9 from pinskia at gcc dot gnu dot org 2006-12-13 17:59 --- (In reply to comment #8) > There must be. mem-ssa is @119760. If you can reproduce with @119760, then > let me know and I'll take a look. I can reproduce it at @119761 which is the same revision for the trunk as 119761 was a revision on a branch. -- http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=30194
[Bug tree-optimization/30194] [4.3 Regression] gcc.dg/pr19633-1.c fails on the mainline
--- Comment #8 from dnovillo at gcc dot gnu dot org 2006-12-13 17:49 --- (In reply to comment #2) > Looks like the mem-ssa patches cause this. > There are no other patches in that time frame. > There must be. mem-ssa is @119760. If you can reproduce with @119760, then let me know and I'll take a look. -- http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=30194
[Bug tree-optimization/30194] [4.3 Regression] gcc.dg/pr19633-1.c fails on the mainline
--- Comment #7 from dnovillo at gcc dot gnu dot org 2006-12-13 17:41 --- (In reply to comment #6) > (In reply to comment #5) > > You completely misunderstood. It works for me on my *mainline* tree that > > has > > the mem-ssa patch applied. > Then why does it fail for FX right after your patch? > I would love to find out. FX, do you have a pre-processed .i? Do you still have a cc1 that eliminates the call to link_error? What transformation removes it? Does it work with revision 119760? That's the revision that added the main mem-ssa changes (aliasing and rewriting). -- http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=30194
[Bug tree-optimization/30194] [4.3 Regression] gcc.dg/pr19633-1.c fails on the mainline
--- Comment #6 from pinskia at gcc dot gnu dot org 2006-12-13 16:59 --- (In reply to comment #5) > You completely misunderstood. It works for me on my *mainline* tree that has > the mem-ssa patch applied. Then why does it fail for FX right after your patch? -- http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=30194
[Bug tree-optimization/30194] [4.3 Regression] gcc.dg/pr19633-1.c fails on the mainline
--- Comment #5 from dnovillo at gcc dot gnu dot org 2006-12-13 16:50 --- (In reply to comment #4) > Subject: Re: [4.3 Regression] > gcc.dg/pr19633-1.c fails on the mainline > > On Wed, 2006-12-13 at 14:12 +, dnovillo at gcc dot gnu dot org > wrote: > > Works for me with @119760 (mem-ssa) on all arches (x86, x86_64, ia64 > > and > > ppc64). > > So, this is about the mainline and not about the mem-ssa branch. I > don't see why you are looking at the mem-ssa branch's results except to > say something changed on the mainline to expose this issue. > You completely misunderstood. It works for me on my *mainline* tree that has the mem-ssa patch applied. -- http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=30194
[Bug tree-optimization/30194] [4.3 Regression] gcc.dg/pr19633-1.c fails on the mainline
--- Comment #4 from pinskia at gmail dot com 2006-12-13 16:37 --- Subject: Re: [4.3 Regression] gcc.dg/pr19633-1.c fails on the mainline On Wed, 2006-12-13 at 14:12 +, dnovillo at gcc dot gnu dot org wrote: > Works for me with @119760 (mem-ssa) on all arches (x86, x86_64, ia64 > and > ppc64). So, this is about the mainline and not about the mem-ssa branch. I don't see why you are looking at the mem-ssa branch's results except to say something changed on the mainline to expose this issue. -- Pinski -- http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=30194
[Bug tree-optimization/30194] [4.3 Regression] gcc.dg/pr19633-1.c fails on the mainline
--- Comment #3 from dnovillo at gcc dot gnu dot org 2006-12-13 14:11 --- Works for me with @119760 (mem-ssa) on all arches (x86, x86_64, ia64 and ppc64). $ make check-gcc RUNTESTFLAGS=dg.exp=pr19633-1.c [...] Test Run By dnovillo on Wed Dec 13 09:05:53 2006 Native configuration is x86_64-unknown-linux-gnu === gcc tests === Schedule of variations: unix Running target unix Using /usr/share/dejagnu/baseboards/unix.exp as board description file for target. Using /usr/share/dejagnu/config/unix.exp as generic interface file for target. Using /home/dnovillo/gcc/src/gcc/testsuite/config/default.exp as tool-and-target-specific interface file. Running /home/dnovillo/gcc/src/gcc/testsuite/gcc.dg/dg.exp ... === gcc Summary === # of expected passes2 /home/notnfs/dnovillo/BLD-gcc-native/gcc/xgcc version 4.3.0 20061212 (experimental) -- http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=30194
[Bug tree-optimization/30194] [4.3 Regression] gcc.dg/pr19633-1.c fails on the mainline
--- Comment #2 from pinskia at gcc dot gnu dot org 2006-12-13 04:21 --- Looks like the mem-ssa patches cause this. There are no other patches in that time frame. -- pinskia at gcc dot gnu dot org changed: What|Removed |Added CC||dnovillo at gcc dot gnu dot ||org http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=30194
[Bug tree-optimization/30194] [4.3 Regression] gcc.dg/pr19633-1.c fails on the mainline
--- Comment #1 from pinskia at gcc dot gnu dot org 2006-12-13 04:16 --- It was passing at r119745: http://gcc.gnu.org/ml/gcc-testresults/2006-12/msg00467.html It was failing at r119761: http://gcc.gnu.org/ml/gcc-testresults/2006-12/msg00472.html -- http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=30194
[Bug tree-optimization/30194] [4.3 Regression] gcc.dg/pr19633-1.c fails on the mainline
-- pinskia at gcc dot gnu dot org changed: What|Removed |Added Target Milestone|--- |4.3.0 http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=30194
