Re: [PATCH] PR71275 ira.c bb_loop_depth

2016-06-15 Thread H.J. Lu
On Wed, Jun 15, 2016 at 7:06 AM, Bernd Schmidt wrote: > > > On 06/15/2016 04:03 PM, Alan Modra wrote: >> >> On Wed, Jun 15, 2016 at 11:49:50AM +0200, Bernd Schmidt wrote: >>> >>> On 06/15/2016 03:30 AM, Alan Modra wrote: Between these two calls to

Re: [PATCH] PR71275 ira.c bb_loop_depth

2016-06-15 Thread Bernd Schmidt
On 06/15/2016 04:03 PM, Alan Modra wrote: On Wed, Jun 15, 2016 at 11:49:50AM +0200, Bernd Schmidt wrote: On 06/15/2016 03:30 AM, Alan Modra wrote: Between these two calls to _gfortran_string_verify, if (verify(c4, "A", back = .true.) .ne. 3) call abort if (verify(c4, "AB") .ne. 0) call

Re: [PATCH] PR71275 ira.c bb_loop_depth

2016-06-15 Thread Alan Modra
On Wed, Jun 15, 2016 at 11:49:50AM +0200, Bernd Schmidt wrote: > On 06/15/2016 03:30 AM, Alan Modra wrote: > >Between these two calls to _gfortran_string_verify, > > if (verify(c4, "A", back = .true.) .ne. 3) call abort > > if (verify(c4, "AB") .ne. 0) call abort > >it seems that gfortran is

Re: [PATCH] PR71275 ira.c bb_loop_depth

2016-06-15 Thread H.J. Lu
On Wed, Jun 15, 2016 at 2:49 AM, Bernd Schmidt wrote: > On 06/15/2016 03:30 AM, Alan Modra wrote: >> >> Between these two calls to _gfortran_string_verify, >> if (verify(c4, "A", back = .true.) .ne. 3) call abort >> if (verify(c4, "AB") .ne. 0) call abort >> it seems that

Re: [PATCH] PR71275 ira.c bb_loop_depth

2016-06-15 Thread Bernd Schmidt
On 06/15/2016 03:30 AM, Alan Modra wrote: Between these two calls to _gfortran_string_verify, if (verify(c4, "A", back = .true.) .ne. 3) call abort if (verify(c4, "AB") .ne. 0) call abort it seems that gfortran is assuming that parameters passed on the stack are unchanged. How? Is this

Re: [PATCH] PR71275 ira.c bb_loop_depth

2016-06-15 Thread Alan Modra
On Wed, Jun 15, 2016 at 11:00:22AM +0930, Alan Modra wrote: > On Tue, Jun 14, 2016 at 09:26:19AM -0700, H.J. Lu wrote: > > On Thu, May 26, 2016 at 4:02 AM, Alan Modra wrote: > > > This fixes lack of bb_loop_depth info in some of the early parts of > > > ira, which has been the

Re: [PATCH] PR71275 ira.c bb_loop_depth

2016-06-14 Thread Alan Modra
On Tue, Jun 14, 2016 at 09:26:19AM -0700, H.J. Lu wrote: > On Thu, May 26, 2016 at 4:02 AM, Alan Modra wrote: > > This fixes lack of bb_loop_depth info in some of the early parts of > > ira, which has been the case for quite some time. All active branches > > return 0 from

Re: [PATCH] PR71275 ira.c bb_loop_depth

2016-06-14 Thread H.J. Lu
On Thu, May 26, 2016 at 4:02 AM, Alan Modra wrote: > This fixes lack of bb_loop_depth info in some of the early parts of > ira, which has been the case for quite some time. All active branches > return 0 from bb_loop_depth() in update_equiv_regs, but whether that > actually

Re: Dominance related breakage, was Re: [PATCH] PR71275 ira.c bb_loop_depth

2016-05-27 Thread Alan Modra
On Thu, May 26, 2016 at 11:04:41PM -0400, Vladimir Makarov wrote: > On 05/26/2016 10:14 PM, Alan Modra wrote: > >On Thu, May 26, 2016 at 10:12:14AM -0400, Vladimir Makarov wrote: > >>On 05/26/2016 07:02 AM, Alan Modra wrote: > >>>This fixes lack of bb_loop_depth info in some of the early parts of

Re: Dominance related breakage, was Re: [PATCH] PR71275 ira.c bb_loop_depth

2016-05-26 Thread Vladimir Makarov
On 05/26/2016 10:14 PM, Alan Modra wrote: On Thu, May 26, 2016 at 10:12:14AM -0400, Vladimir Makarov wrote: On 05/26/2016 07:02 AM, Alan Modra wrote: This fixes lack of bb_loop_depth info in some of the early parts of ira, which has been the case for quite some time. All active branches

Dominance related breakage, was Re: [PATCH] PR71275 ira.c bb_loop_depth

2016-05-26 Thread Alan Modra
On Thu, May 26, 2016 at 10:12:14AM -0400, Vladimir Makarov wrote: > On 05/26/2016 07:02 AM, Alan Modra wrote: > >This fixes lack of bb_loop_depth info in some of the early parts of > >ira, which has been the case for quite some time. All active branches > >return 0 from bb_loop_depth() in

Re: [PATCH] PR71275 ira.c bb_loop_depth

2016-05-26 Thread Vladimir Makarov
On 05/26/2016 07:02 AM, Alan Modra wrote: This fixes lack of bb_loop_depth info in some of the early parts of ira, which has been the case for quite some time. All active branches return 0 from bb_loop_depth() in update_equiv_regs, but whether that actually causes mis-optimization anywhere but

[PATCH] PR71275 ira.c bb_loop_depth

2016-05-26 Thread Alan Modra
This fixes lack of bb_loop_depth info in some of the early parts of ira, which has been the case for quite some time. All active branches return 0 from bb_loop_depth() in update_equiv_regs, but whether that actually causes mis-optimization anywhere but trunk is yet to be determined. I played a