On 03/08/15 03:14, Richard Biener wrote:
On March 7, 2015 5:20:08 PM CET, Jeff Law l...@redhat.com wrote:
On 03/07/15 01:34, Richard Biener wrote:
On March 6, 2015 9:22:05 PM CET, Martin Sebor mse...@redhat.com
wrote:
On 03/06/2015 10:28 AM, Jeff Law wrote:
On 03/02/15 09:28, Martin Sebor
I backported the fix to the 4.9 branch already, so it would be nice to
get the test cases fixes there as well.
Martin -- that's your cue ;-)
Sure. It's on my list of things to do.
Martin
On March 7, 2015 5:20:08 PM CET, Jeff Law l...@redhat.com wrote:
On 03/07/15 01:34, Richard Biener wrote:
On March 6, 2015 9:22:05 PM CET, Martin Sebor mse...@redhat.com
wrote:
On 03/06/2015 10:28 AM, Jeff Law wrote:
On 03/02/15 09:28, Martin Sebor wrote:
On 03/02/2015 06:58 AM, Richard Biener
On 03/07/15 01:34, Richard Biener wrote:
On March 6, 2015 9:22:05 PM CET, Martin Sebor mse...@redhat.com wrote:
On 03/06/2015 10:28 AM, Jeff Law wrote:
On 03/02/15 09:28, Martin Sebor wrote:
On 03/02/2015 06:58 AM, Richard Biener wrote:
On Fri, 27 Feb 2015, Martin Sebor wrote:
Given that
On March 6, 2015 9:22:05 PM CET, Martin Sebor mse...@redhat.com wrote:
On 03/06/2015 10:28 AM, Jeff Law wrote:
On 03/02/15 09:28, Martin Sebor wrote:
On 03/02/2015 06:58 AM, Richard Biener wrote:
On Fri, 27 Feb 2015, Martin Sebor wrote:
Given that Martin's fix to the testcase allowed it to
On 03/02/15 09:28, Martin Sebor wrote:
On 03/02/2015 06:58 AM, Richard Biener wrote:
On Fri, 27 Feb 2015, Martin Sebor wrote:
Given that Martin's fix to the testcase allowed it to succeed without
Richi's fix for the underlying problem, is there a modification to the
testcase or a new testcase
On 03/06/2015 10:28 AM, Jeff Law wrote:
On 03/02/15 09:28, Martin Sebor wrote:
On 03/02/2015 06:58 AM, Richard Biener wrote:
On Fri, 27 Feb 2015, Martin Sebor wrote:
Given that Martin's fix to the testcase allowed it to succeed without
Richi's fix for the underlying problem, is there a
On Thu, 5 Mar 2015, Martin Sebor wrote:
Attached is a scaled down version of the test for the bug.
It fixes the scan-tree-dump-times string to match what GCC
5 prints and moves the result checking out of the test
function and into main to prevent it from getting optimized
away (as observed
Attached is a scaled down version of the test for the bug.
It fixes the scan-tree-dump-times string to match what GCC
5 prints and moves the result checking out of the test
function and into main to prevent it from getting optimized
away (as observed in comment #8 on the bug).
The patch also
On Fri, 27 Feb 2015, Martin Sebor wrote:
Given that Martin's fix to the testcase allowed it to succeed without
Richi's fix for the underlying problem, is there a modification to the
testcase or a new testcase that would really test the optimization?
Let me work on it.
Below is a
On 03/02/2015 06:58 AM, Richard Biener wrote:
On Fri, 27 Feb 2015, Martin Sebor wrote:
Given that Martin's fix to the testcase allowed it to succeed without
Richi's fix for the underlying problem, is there a modification to the
testcase or a new testcase that would really test the
On Tue, Feb 24, 2015 at 2:30 PM, Jeff Law l...@redhat.com wrote:
On 02/23/15 20:38, Martin Sebor wrote:
On 02/22/2015 11:45 AM, David Edelsohn wrote:
Does this patch really fix the problem? The PR notes that the
testcase fails and code quality has regressed. Has the code
generation been
On 02/27/2015 07:27 AM, David Edelsohn wrote:
On Tue, Feb 24, 2015 at 2:30 PM, Jeff Law l...@redhat.com wrote:
On 02/23/15 20:38, Martin Sebor wrote:
On 02/22/2015 11:45 AM, David Edelsohn wrote:
Does this patch really fix the problem? The PR notes that the
testcase fails and code quality
Given that Martin's fix to the testcase allowed it to succeed without
Richi's fix for the underlying problem, is there a modification to the
testcase or a new testcase that would really test the optimization?
Let me work on it.
Below is a patch with a couple of minor tweaks to the existing
On 02/23/15 20:38, Martin Sebor wrote:
On 02/22/2015 11:45 AM, David Edelsohn wrote:
Does this patch really fix the problem? The PR notes that the
testcase fails and code quality has regressed. Has the code
generation been corrected but the testcase looks for the wrong string?
Presumably
On Sun, Feb 22, 2015 at 7:45 PM, David Edelsohn dje@gmail.com wrote:
Does this patch really fix the problem? The PR notes that the
testcase fails and code quality has regressed. Has the code
generation been corrected but the testcase looks for the wrong string?
Presumably the message
On 02/22/2015 11:45 AM, David Edelsohn wrote:
Does this patch really fix the problem? The PR notes that the
testcase fails and code quality has regressed. Has the code
generation been corrected but the testcase looks for the wrong string?
Presumably the message that basic block was
Does this patch really fix the problem? The PR notes that the
testcase fails and code quality has regressed. Has the code
generation been corrected but the testcase looks for the wrong string?
Presumably the message that basic block was vectorized means that the
code generation is correct, but
The trivial patch below fixes the failure in
gcc.dg/vect/costmodel/ppc/costmodel-bb-slp-9a.c on ppc64 and ppc
noted in PR63175.
Martin
Index: ChangeLog
===
--- ChangeLog (revision 220801)
+++ ChangeLog (working copy)
@@ -1,3
19 matches
Mail list logo
