[Bug tree-optimization/45656] [4.5 Regression]: gfortran.dg/forall_4.f90 -O3, wrong code with -g
--- Comment #4 from aoliva at gcc dot gnu dot org 2010-09-21 09:19 --- Mine. It's something wrong in combine, causing the cmp insn to be deleted as trivially dead. -- aoliva at gcc dot gnu dot org changed: What|Removed |Added AssignedTo|unassigned at gcc dot gnu |aoliva at gcc dot gnu dot |dot org |org Status|NEW |ASSIGNED http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=45656
[Bug tree-optimization/45656] [4.5 Regression]: gfortran.dg/forall_4.f90 -O3, wrong code with -g
--- Comment #5 from aoliva at gcc dot gnu dot org 2010-09-21 10:04 --- Created an attachment (id=21855) -- (http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=21855action=view) Patch that fixes the problem cse was losing track of cc0 set/use because of intervening debug insns. Anyone got a CC0 host to bootstrap-test this on? -- http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=45656
[Bug tree-optimization/45656] [4.5 Regression]: gfortran.dg/forall_4.f90 -O3, wrong code with -g
--- Comment #6 from hp at gcc dot gnu dot org 2010-09-21 15:11 --- (In reply to comment #5) Created an attachment (id=21855) -- (http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=21855action=view) [edit] Patch that fixes the problem cse was losing track of cc0 set/use because of intervening debug insns. Anyone got a CC0 host to bootstrap-test this on? Thanks for looking to this. No bootstrap unfortunately, but I can regression-test it for cris-elf, which should be sufficient. Well, I'm quite certain you too know exactly the steps ;-) but I guess since I have a baseline and a setup... Let me just suggest changing the ... == 0 to ... == NULL_RTX in the last part of the patch. To incentivise, I'll test that. :) -- http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=45656
[Bug tree-optimization/45656] [4.5 Regression]: gfortran.dg/forall_4.f90 -O3, wrong code with -g
--- Comment #7 from hp at gcc dot gnu dot org 2010-09-21 15:17 --- Created an attachment (id=21857) -- (http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=21857action=view) Same patch, just s/0/NULL_RTX/ in two places. As mentioned plus one more place. -- hp at gcc dot gnu dot org changed: What|Removed |Added Attachment #21855|0 |1 is obsolete|| http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=45656
[Bug tree-optimization/45656] [4.5 Regression]: gfortran.dg/forall_4.f90 -O3, wrong code with -g
--- Comment #8 from hp at gcc dot gnu dot org 2010-09-21 16:34 --- Created an attachment (id=21858) -- (http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=21858action=view) Same patch, just gunzipped this time. :) -- hp at gcc dot gnu dot org changed: What|Removed |Added Attachment #21857|0 |1 is obsolete|| http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=45656
[Bug tree-optimization/45656] [4.5 Regression]: gfortran.dg/forall_4.f90 -O3, wrong code with -g
--- Comment #9 from hp at gcc dot gnu dot org 2010-09-21 21:44 --- (In reply to comment #8) Created an attachment (id=21858) -- (http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=21858action=view) [edit] It fixes the bug with no regressions for r164480. Thanks! -- http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=45656
[Bug tree-optimization/45656] [4.5 Regression]: gfortran.dg/forall_4.f90 -O3, wrong code with -g
--- Comment #1 from hp at gcc dot gnu dot org 2010-09-13 14:00 --- Created an attachment (id=21784) -- (http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=21784action=view) shortened gfortran.dg/forall_4.f90 -O3 -g -- http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=45656
[Bug tree-optimization/45656] [4.5 Regression]: gfortran.dg/forall_4.f90 -O3, wrong code with -g
--- Comment #2 from matz at gcc dot gnu dot org 2010-09-13 14:21 --- Uh, I just disabled tree-sinking in some cases. This can't be directly the reason for the problem, rather it must have uncovered a latent problem. Will try to investigate. -- http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=45656
[Bug tree-optimization/45656] [4.5 Regression]: gfortran.dg/forall_4.f90 -O3, wrong code with -g
--- Comment #3 from hp at gcc dot gnu dot org 2010-09-13 14:37 --- (In reply to comment #1) -O3 -g I forgot to mention, also: -fno-delayed-branch (reorg is always the usual suspect when latent bugs are exposed, but not so this time.) I guess it's fair to include Alexandre what with the latent-bug-code-difference-with--g observation. -- hp at gcc dot gnu dot org changed: What|Removed |Added CC||aoliva at gcc dot gnu dot ||org Status|UNCONFIRMED |NEW Ever Confirmed|0 |1 Last reconfirmed|-00-00 00:00:00 |2010-09-13 14:37:09 date|| http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=45656
