[Bug tree-optimization/39643] [4.5 Regression]: cris-elf gcc.dg/torture/builtin-math-3.c -O1 and -Os sincos one
--- Comment #5 from rguenth at gcc dot gnu dot org 2009-04-06 11:14 --- For cris-axis-elf we do not fold one_1 = 1.0e+0; oneL_2 = 1.0e+0; __builtin_sincos (1.0e+0, s, c); to a constant because __builtin_sincos did not get transformed to __builtin_cexpi. We fold it later via the fold-all-builtins pass but nothing promotes memory to registers after that pass with -O1. I have a patch that should fix this. -- rguenth at gcc dot gnu dot org changed: What|Removed |Added AssignedTo|unassigned at gcc dot gnu |rguenth at gcc dot gnu dot |dot org |org Status|NEW |ASSIGNED Keywords||missed-optimization Last reconfirmed|2009-04-05 22:00:23 |2009-04-06 11:14:36 date|| Target Milestone|--- |4.5.0 http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=39643
[Bug tree-optimization/39643] [4.5 Regression]: cris-elf gcc.dg/torture/builtin-math-3.c -O1 and -Os sincos one
--- Comment #4 from rguenth at gcc dot gnu dot org 2009-04-06 11:00 --- Ok, I can see at least one missed CCP optimization when looking at what the x86_64 target produces. Now building a cross to see why for cris the second CCP pass together with either FRE or DOM or the third CCP pass do not fix this. -- http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=39643
[Bug tree-optimization/39643] [4.5 Regression]: cris-elf gcc.dg/torture/builtin-math-3.c -O1 and -Os sincos one
--- Comment #6 from rguenth at gcc dot gnu dot org 2009-04-06 14:16 --- Fixed. -- rguenth at gcc dot gnu dot org changed: What|Removed |Added Status|ASSIGNED|RESOLVED Resolution||FIXED http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=39643
[Bug tree-optimization/39643] [4.5 Regression]: cris-elf gcc.dg/torture/builtin-math-3.c -O1 and -Os sincos one
--- Comment #7 from rguenth at gcc dot gnu dot org 2009-04-06 14:16 --- Subject: Bug 39643 Author: rguenth Date: Mon Apr 6 14:16:15 2009 New Revision: 145604 URL: http://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?root=gccview=revrev=145604 Log: 2009-04-06 Richard Guenther rguent...@suse.de PR tree-optimization/39643 * tree-ssa-ccp.c (ccp_fold): Fold REALPART_EXPRs and IMAGPART_EXPRs of complex constants. (execute_fold_all_builtins): If we folded a call queue TODO_update_address_taken. Modified: trunk/gcc/ChangeLog trunk/gcc/tree-ssa-ccp.c -- http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=39643
[Bug tree-optimization/39643] [4.5 Regression]: cris-elf gcc.dg/torture/builtin-math-3.c -O1 and -Os sincos one
--- Comment #1 from rguenther at suse dot de 2009-04-05 18:07 --- Subject: Re: New: [4.5 Regression]: cris-elf gcc.dg/torture/builtin-math-3.c -O1 and -Os sincos one On Sat, 4 Apr 2009, hp at gcc dot gnu dot org wrote: With revision 145488 this test passed. From revision 145495 and on, this test has failed as follows: ... Running /tmp/hpautotest-gcc1/gcc/gcc/testsuite/gcc.dg/torture/dg-torture.exp ... FAIL: gcc.dg/torture/builtin-math-3.c -O1 (test for excess errors) FAIL: gcc.dg/torture/builtin-math-3.c -Os (test for excess errors) ... With the message in gcc.log being: builtin-math-3.c:(.text+0x88): undefined reference to `_link_error' builtin-math-3.c:(.text+0xfe): undefined reference to `_link_error' builtin-math-3.c:(.text+0x174): undefined reference to `_link_error' builtin-math-3.c:(.text+0x1aa): undefined reference to `_link_error' builtin-math-3.c:(.text+0x220): undefined reference to `_link_error' /tmp/ccKBGOIU.o:builtin-math-3.c:(.text+0x296): more undefined references to `_link_error' follow The lack of line-numbers is of course unhelpful, but with -g added, the link error becomes, for both -O1 and -Os: builtin-math-3.o: In function `main': /tmp/hpautotest-gcc1/gcc/gcc/testsuite/gcc.dg/torture/builtin-math-3.c:176: undefined reference to `_link_error' /tmp/hpautotest-gcc1/gcc/gcc/testsuite/gcc.dg/torture/builtin-math-3.c:176: undefined reference to `_link_error' /tmp/hpautotest-gcc1/gcc/gcc/testsuite/gcc.dg/torture/builtin-math-3.c:177: undefined reference to `_link_error' /tmp/hpautotest-gcc1/gcc/gcc/testsuite/gcc.dg/torture/builtin-math-3.c:177: undefined reference to `_link_error' Author of patches in suspect revision range CC:ed. Can you 1) reduce the testcase and attach preprocessed source that works with a cross-compiler, 2) identify what goes wrong so we don't have to analyze cris assembler? Thanks, Richard. -- http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=39643
[Bug tree-optimization/39643] [4.5 Regression]: cris-elf gcc.dg/torture/builtin-math-3.c -O1 and -Os sincos one
--- Comment #2 from hp at gcc dot gnu dot org 2009-04-05 22:00 --- (In reply to comment #1) Can you 1) reduce the testcase and attach preprocessed source that works with a cross-compiler, The test-case was already self-contained and had little context-sensitiveness due to the line-oriented nature, so I didn't expect you to need this. 2) identify what goes wrong so we don't have to analyze cris assembler? This is a bit worrying. Surely you didn't think this would ever be needed, for a test-case where the nature of the failure is that it emits a subroutine call to link_error()? Again, the regression is a missing optimization of sincos for a soft-float target, as already mentioned in the summary and description. Anyway, one reduced test-case coming up. -- hp at gcc dot gnu dot org changed: What|Removed |Added Status|UNCONFIRMED |NEW Ever Confirmed|0 |1 Last reconfirmed|-00-00 00:00:00 |2009-04-05 22:00:23 date|| http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=39643
[Bug tree-optimization/39643] [4.5 Regression]: cris-elf gcc.dg/torture/builtin-math-3.c -O1 and -Os sincos one
--- Comment #3 from hp at gcc dot gnu dot org 2009-04-05 22:05 --- Created an attachment (id=17591) -- (http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=17591action=view) Reduced gcc.dg/torture/builtin-math-3.c The two lines causing link_error() to be called as in the linker error messages are cut out and the condition is reduced such that the emitted assembly-code is still identical. Compile with e.g. -O1. Observe libcalls for = and = being called for constants, while in the pre-regression code, everything is optimized out to the effect of return 0; -- http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=39643
