[Bug target/44606] Wrong SPE floating point during computation

2010-08-31 Thread Kyle dot D dot Moffett at boeing dot com
--- Comment #5 from Kyle dot D dot Moffett at boeing dot com 2010-08-31 14:03 --- Created an attachment (id=21605) -- (http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=21605action=view) Further stripped testcase with problematic section identified Ok, I've spent a bit more time fiddling

[Bug target/44606] Wrong SPE floating point during computation

2010-08-31 Thread Kyle dot D dot Moffett at boeing dot com
--- Comment #6 from Kyle dot D dot Moffett at boeing dot com 2010-08-31 14:04 --- Created an attachment (id=21606) -- (http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=21606action=view) Makefile for test.c -- http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=44606

[Bug target/44606] Wrong SPE floating point during computation

2010-07-16 Thread Kyle dot D dot Moffett at boeing dot com
--- Comment #4 from Kyle dot D dot Moffett at boeing dot com 2010-07-16 18:48 --- (In reply to comment #0) I attached two testcase which is stripped down graphicsmagick code. tc-resize2.c has a few instructions more than tc-resize.c. I belive the bug is the same. I was able

[Bug target/44364] Wrong code with e500 double floating point

2010-06-21 Thread Kyle dot D dot Moffett at boeing dot com
--- Comment #47 from Kyle dot D dot Moffett at boeing dot com 2010-06-21 15:55 --- (In reply to comment #41) Created an attachment (id=20877) -- (http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=20877action=view) [edit] e500.h and caller-save.c patch The ICE in #38 is due to a bug

[Bug target/44364] Wrong code with e500 double floating point

2010-06-08 Thread Kyle dot D dot Moffett at boeing dot com
--- Comment #33 from Kyle dot D dot Moffett at boeing dot com 2010-06-08 06:48 --- EGLIBC and PPL are still building; I'm heading to sleep and I'll check on them later this morning. -- http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=44364

[Bug target/44364] Wrong code with e500 double floating point

2010-06-08 Thread Kyle dot D dot Moffett at boeing dot com
--- Comment #35 from Kyle dot D dot Moffett at boeing dot com 2010-06-08 15:23 --- Hrm, well PPL still seems to be failing the interval1 test, but I'm not sure that one's related as the part that fails is test01float. More info to come shortly. -- http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla

[Bug target/44364] Wrong code with e500 double floating point

2010-06-08 Thread Kyle dot D dot Moffett at boeing dot com
--- Comment #36 from Kyle dot D dot Moffett at boeing dot com 2010-06-08 20:34 --- Ok, I'm pretty sure this is unrelated to this bug, but I still get one test-failure with PPL 0.10.2. The interval1 test fails due to the test01float subtest, apparently due to very slightly excessive

[Bug target/44364] Wrong code with e500 double floating point

2010-06-07 Thread Kyle dot D dot Moffett at boeing dot com
--- Comment #27 from Kyle dot D dot Moffett at boeing dot com 2010-06-07 12:49 --- (In reply to comment #25) Yes it seems the patch is not sufficient on 4.4. On mainline the code looks good by inspection. (I don't have e500 hardware to run tests on.) If you'd like login access

[Bug target/44364] Wrong code with e500 double floating point

2010-06-07 Thread Kyle dot D dot Moffett at boeing dot com
--- Comment #29 from Kyle dot D dot Moffett at boeing dot com 2010-06-07 18:28 --- Awesome!!! Both of our testcases that were failing pass with this patch applied! I'm not going to call it a 100% victory yet, I want to rebuild our native compilers and build-and-run the PostgreSQL, GMP

[Bug target/44364] Wrong code with e500 double floating point

2010-06-07 Thread Kyle dot D dot Moffett at boeing dot com
--- Comment #30 from Kyle dot D dot Moffett at boeing dot com 2010-06-07 18:56 --- Ok, the cross-compiler built with this patch fails to build a native GCC for the target with the following ICE: ../../../src/libgcc/../libdecnumber/decLibrary.c: In function 'isinfd128': ../../../src

[Bug target/44364] Wrong code with e500 double floating point

2010-06-07 Thread Kyle dot D dot Moffett at boeing dot com
--- Comment #31 from Kyle dot D dot Moffett at boeing dot com 2010-06-08 04:24 --- Alan, Now that I've corrected all of my compiler issues, your first patch (the one quoted below) works like a charm. I still need to do the extensive archive-rebuild and testsuite run to verify

[Bug target/44364] Wrong code with e500 double floating point

2010-06-07 Thread Kyle dot D dot Moffett at boeing dot com
--- Comment #32 from Kyle dot D dot Moffett at boeing dot com 2010-06-08 05:07 --- The first working patch (VOIDmode||DFmode) just successfully passed full GMP and MPFR testsuites on the e500 boards. PPL and EGLIBC are currently rebuilding. -- http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla

[Bug target/44364] Wrong code with e500 double floating point

2010-06-06 Thread Kyle dot D dot Moffett at boeing dot com
--- Comment #21 from Kyle dot D dot Moffett at boeing dot com 2010-06-06 15:37 --- I was trying to strip down the testcase and try to see which optimization flags caused it. I started from -O2 and tried to see which -O2 flags (in addition to O1) were needed to cause the problem. From

[Bug target/44364] Wrong code with e500 double floating point

2010-06-06 Thread Kyle dot D dot Moffett at boeing dot com
--- Comment #23 from Kyle dot D dot Moffett at boeing dot com 2010-06-07 05:36 --- (In reply to comment #22) Adding the following to config/rs6000/e500.h will likely fix the bug. Testing.. Oh, very nice! Thanks for the speedy assistance on this! I've got my own test compiler

[Bug target/44364] Wrong code with e500 double floating point

2010-06-06 Thread Kyle dot D dot Moffett at boeing dot com
--- Comment #24 from Kyle dot D dot Moffett at boeing dot com 2010-06-07 05:44 --- Hmm, unfortunately in my preliminary testing this does not seem to fix either testcase. Cheers, Kyle Moffett -- http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=44364

[Bug target/44364] Wrong code with e500 double floating point

2010-06-04 Thread Kyle dot D dot Moffett at boeing dot com
--- Comment #17 from Kyle dot D dot Moffett at boeing dot com 2010-06-04 17:24 --- Created an attachment (id=20840) -- (http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=20840action=view) Minimal test with -O1 I've managed to shrink this down to a 44-line testcase that fails

[Bug target/44364] Wrong code with e500 double floating point

2010-06-04 Thread Kyle dot D dot Moffett at boeing dot com
--- Comment #18 from Kyle dot D dot Moffett at boeing dot com 2010-06-04 17:24 --- Created an attachment (id=20841) -- (http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=20841action=view) Minimal test objdump with -O1 -- http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=44364

[Bug target/44364] Wrong code with e500 double floating point

2010-06-03 Thread Kyle dot D dot Moffett at boeing dot com
--- Comment #3 from Kyle dot D dot Moffett at boeing dot com 2010-06-03 19:26 --- (In reply to comment #0) So after looking at the code I saw now the following: 1c24 __floatdidf: 1c6c: 11 23 1a 2c evmergehi r9,r3,r3 This function is touching the complete 64bit

[Bug target/44364] Wrong code with e500 double floating point

2010-06-03 Thread Kyle dot D dot Moffett at boeing dot com
--- Comment #4 from Kyle dot D dot Moffett at boeing dot com 2010-06-03 20:09 --- Ok, I have a trivial 19-line testcase that triggers the bug on my native Debian GCC 4.4.4-2+powerpcspe1 (with PR44169 fix) with -O0 and -O3. The compiler was built with: --with-cpu=8548 --enable

[Bug target/44364] Wrong code with e500 double floating point

2010-06-03 Thread Kyle dot D dot Moffett at boeing dot com
--- Comment #6 from Kyle dot D dot Moffett at boeing dot com 2010-06-03 20:21 --- Created an attachment (id=20823) -- (http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=20823action=view) Combined trivial testcase (For -O0) -- http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=44364

[Bug target/44364] Wrong code with e500 double floating point

2010-06-03 Thread Kyle dot D dot Moffett at boeing dot com
--- Comment #7 from Kyle dot D dot Moffett at boeing dot com 2010-06-03 20:22 --- Created an attachment (id=20824) -- (http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=20824action=view) Multipart trivial testcase (For -O3) -- http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=44364

[Bug target/44364] Wrong code with e500 double floating point

2010-06-03 Thread Kyle dot D dot Moffett at boeing dot com
--- Comment #8 from Kyle dot D dot Moffett at boeing dot com 2010-06-03 20:22 --- Created an attachment (id=20825) -- (http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=20825action=view) Multipart trivial testcase (For -O3) part 2 -- http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=44364

[Bug target/44364] Wrong code with e500 double floating point

2010-06-03 Thread Kyle dot D dot Moffett at boeing dot com
--- Comment #9 from Kyle dot D dot Moffett at boeing dot com 2010-06-03 20:22 --- Created an attachment (id=20826) -- (http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=20826action=view) Multipart trivial testcase (For -O3) part 3 -- http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=44364

[Bug target/44364] Wrong code with e500 double floating point

2010-06-03 Thread Kyle dot D dot Moffett at boeing dot com
--- Comment #10 from Kyle dot D dot Moffett at boeing dot com 2010-06-03 20:26 --- Created an attachment (id=20827) -- (http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=20827action=view) Multipart trivial testcase objdump result (Built with -O0) -- http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla

[Bug target/44364] Wrong code with e500 double floating point

2010-06-03 Thread Kyle dot D dot Moffett at boeing dot com
--- Comment #11 from Kyle dot D dot Moffett at boeing dot com 2010-06-03 20:26 --- Created an attachment (id=20828) -- (http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=20828action=view) Multipart trivial testcase objdump result (Built with -O3) -- http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla

[Bug target/44364] Wrong code with e500 double floating point

2010-06-03 Thread Kyle dot D dot Moffett at boeing dot com
--- Comment #12 from Kyle dot D dot Moffett at boeing dot com 2010-06-03 23:18 --- (From update of attachment 20823) Scratch my test cases... register asm(...) doesn't work the way I thought it did... Sebastian's test case is the only one that I've found that works. -- Kyle dot D

[Bug target/44364] Wrong code with e500 double floating point

2010-06-03 Thread Kyle dot D dot Moffett at boeing dot com
--- Comment #13 from Kyle dot D dot Moffett at boeing dot com 2010-06-04 01:37 --- Created an attachment (id=20829) -- (http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=20829action=view) Updated tc-lossings-floats.c I sat down with GCC and vim for a couple hours narrowing down

[Bug target/44364] Wrong code with e500 double floating point

2010-06-03 Thread Kyle dot D dot Moffett at boeing dot com
--- Comment #14 from Kyle dot D dot Moffett at boeing dot com 2010-06-04 01:37 --- Created an attachment (id=20830) -- (http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=20830action=view) Updated tc-lossings-floats.objdump -- http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=44364

[Bug target/44364] Wrong code with e500 double floating point

2010-06-03 Thread Kyle dot D dot Moffett at boeing dot com
--- Comment #15 from Kyle dot D dot Moffett at boeing dot com 2010-06-04 02:17 --- Created an attachment (id=20831) -- (http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=20831action=view) Even tinier tc-lossings-floats.c Spent a bit more time on the testcase and made it even smaller

[Bug target/44364] Wrong code with e500 double floating point

2010-06-03 Thread Kyle dot D dot Moffett at boeing dot com
--- Comment #16 from Kyle dot D dot Moffett at boeing dot com 2010-06-04 02:17 --- Created an attachment (id=20832) -- (http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=20832action=view) Even tinier tc-lossings-floats.objdump -- Kyle dot D dot Moffett at boeing dot com changed

[Bug rtl-optimization/44169] Wrong code while generating TLS offsets

2010-05-20 Thread Kyle dot D dot Moffett at boeing dot com
--- Comment #7 from Kyle dot D dot Moffett at boeing dot com 2010-05-20 12:17 --- Created an attachment (id=20707) -- (http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=20707action=view) Assembled tc.c output from Debian-built powerpc-linux-gnuspe-gcc 4.3.4 -- http://gcc.gnu.org

[Bug rtl-optimization/44169] Wrong code while generating TLS offsets

2010-05-20 Thread Kyle dot D dot Moffett at boeing dot com
--- Comment #8 from Kyle dot D dot Moffett at boeing dot com 2010-05-20 12:19 --- Created an attachment (id=20708) -- (http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=20708action=view) Assembled tc.c output from Debian-built powerpc-linux-gnuspe-gcc 4.4.4 -- http://gcc.gnu.org

[Bug rtl-optimization/44169] Wrong code while generating TLS offsets

2010-05-20 Thread Kyle dot D dot Moffett at boeing dot com
--- Comment #9 from Kyle dot D dot Moffett at boeing dot com 2010-05-20 12:29 --- Created an attachment (id=20710) -- (http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=20710action=view) Assembled tc.c output from Debian-built powerpc-linux-gnuspe-gcc 4.4.2 -- http://gcc.gnu.org

[Bug rtl-optimization/44169] Wrong code while generating TLS offsets

2010-05-20 Thread Kyle dot D dot Moffett at boeing dot com
--- Comment #10 from Kyle dot D dot Moffett at boeing dot com 2010-05-20 12:37 --- Ok, it looks like the bug was introduced in the 4.4 branch between 4.4.2 and 4.4.4, because my old GCC 4.4.2 compiler works, but the 4.4.4 I built yesterday after I noticed this report does

[Bug rtl-optimization/44169] Wrong code while generating TLS offsets

2010-05-19 Thread Kyle dot D dot Moffett at boeing dot com
--- Comment #5 from Kyle dot D dot Moffett at boeing dot com 2010-05-20 04:53 --- I am not able to reproduce this with a cross-compiling GCC 4.4.3 or 4.4.4 built from Debian sources. Configuration parameters for GCC 4.4.4 were: -v --with-pkgversion='Debian 4.4.4-2' --with-bugurl