--- Additional Comments From reichelt at gcc dot gnu dot org 2004-11-23
16:53 ---
Zdenek, the regression was introduced by your patch
http://gcc.gnu.org/ml/gcc-cvs/2004-07/msg00536.html
Could you please have a look?
--
What|Removed |Added
--
--- Additional Comments From pinskia at gcc dot gnu dot org 2004-11-23
17:09 ---
I really doubt that his change did anything except maybe change the tree level.
Here is one which can most likely reproduced before his change:
int main (int i)
{
int lsm_tmp1;
int D1127;
lsm_tmp1 = i;
--- Additional Comments From pinskia at gcc dot gnu dot org 2004-11-23
17:13 ---
In fact we just to ICE on my example back before 2004-06-18 and not produce the
label after that.
It worked before 20040511 but in 2004-05-14 we produced the segfault. (this is
the time period
which the
--- Additional Comments From pinskia at gcc dot gnu dot org 2004-11-23
17:22 ---
It started to ICE on the tree-ssa:
: Search converges between 2003-08-31-ssa (#74) and 2003-09-01-ssa (#75).
But it stopped:
: Search converges between 2003-09-01-ssa (#75) and 2003-09-03-ssa (#76).
At which
--- Additional Comments From pinskia at gcc dot gnu dot org 2004-11-23
17:38 ---
The bug looks to be in *.ce1.
--
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=18628
--- Additional Comments From pinskia at gcc dot gnu dot org 2004-11-23
17:48 ---
We are removing a bb which we should not be.
--
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=18628
--- Additional Comments From pinskia at gcc dot gnu dot org 2004-11-23
18:15 ---
Well before we would move the label but now we don't.
--
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=18628
--- Additional Comments From roger at eyesopen dot com 2004-11-28 18:01
---
Hmm... This is a difficult one. We manage to split a table jump sequence, and
introduce a label between the indexed load of a jump table and the indirect
jump. We then hoist the indexed load, and later simplify
--- Additional Comments From steven at gcc dot gnu dot org 2004-12-15
12:30 ---
Given Roger's analysis, this bug is probably present in earlier GCCs as
well, so this is not really a regression.
--
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=18628
--- Additional Comments From pinskia at gcc dot gnu dot org 2004-12-15
14:11 ---
(In reply to comment #14)
> Given Roger's analysis, this bug is probably present in earlier GCCs as
> well, so this is not really a regression.
It is still an user visible regression aka it was a latent b
--- Additional Comments From giovannibajo at libero dot it 2004-12-15
23:52 ---
Anyway, this is surely a low-priority regression, since the combination of
flags needed to trigger this is unusual at least.
--
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=18628
--- Additional Comments From micis at gmx dot de 2004-12-16 07:51 ---
Maybe you missed the example given in comment #3 which miscompiles with just "-
O2"
--
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=18628
--- Additional Comments From steven at gcc dot gnu dot org 2004-12-15
13:54 ---
Just so everyone knows, the label disappears in the call to cleanup_cfg
from rest_of_handle_if_conversion. The CFG just before looks like this:
Basic block 0 (dirty)
Predecessors: ENTRY [100.0%] (fall
--- Additional Comments From steven at gcc dot gnu dot org 2005-01-05
17:08 ---
Any chance this is related to 18861?
--
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=18628
--- Additional Comments From reichelt at gcc dot gnu dot org 2005-01-07
10:24 ---
Alas this is not fixed by the patch for PR18861.
--
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=18628
--- Additional Comments From rth at gcc dot gnu dot org 2005-02-03 02:59
---
(In reply to comment #13)
> [3] We could prohibit the simplification that extracts a symbol ref out of a
> jump table, so that an indexed load is always performed a run-time, and so
> changing the jump table is
--
What|Removed |Added
Priority|P2 |P1
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=18628
17 matches
Mail list logo
